» 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA    PUBLICATIONS 
CLASSICAL    PHILOLOGY 

'ol.  1,  No.  7,  pp.  205-262  Junes  190? 


0 

•g  t 

0 

JTH 

o 

^^^=i 

o 

^==—  z_      I 

1 

5 

3 
0 

^^^=|     , 

^p^    ji 

^Sc 

5 

^S3        ", 

6 

<" 

SOME   PHASES  OF  THE   RELATION   OF 
THOUGHT  TO  VERSE   IN   PLAUTUS 


HENRY  W.   PRESCOTT 


BERKELEY 

THE   UNIVERSITY   PRESS 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA    PUBLICATIONS 

Note.— The  University  of  California  Publications  are  offered  in  exchange  for  the 
publications  of  learned  societies  and  institutions,  universities  and  libraries.  Complete 
lists  of  all  the  publications  of  the  University  will  be  sent  upon  request.  For  sample 
copies,  lists  of  publications  or  other  information,  address  the  Manager  of  the  University 
Press,  Berkeley,  California,  U.  S.  A.  All  matter  sent  in  exchange  should  be  addressed 
to  The  Exchange  Department,  University  Library,  Berkeley,  California,  U.  S.  A. 

CLASSICAL   PHILOLOGY.— Edward  B.  Clapp,  William  A.  Merrill,  Herbert  C. 
Nutting,  Editors.      Price  per  volume  $2.00.      Volume    I    (in 
progress). 
No.   1.     Hiatus  in  Greek  Melic  Poetry,  by  Edward  B.  Clapp.  Price,  $0.50 
No.  2.    Studies  in  the  Si-clause,  by  Herbert  C.  Nutting.        .        .  "  .60 
No.  3.    The  Whence  and  Whither  of  the   Modern  Science  of  Lan- 
guage, by  Benj.  Ide  Wheeler "  .25 

No.  4.    On  the   Influence  of   Lucretius  on  Horace,  by  William  A. 

Merrill     ..........  "  .25 

No.  5.    The  Priests  of  Asklepios  (A  New  Method  of  Dating  Athenian 

Archons),  by  William  Scott  Ferguson  ....  "  .50 

No.  6.     Horace's  Alcaic  Strophe,  by  Leon  Josiah  Richardson      .  "  .25 

No.  7.     Some  Phases  of  the  Relation  of  Thought  to  Verse  in  Plautus, 

by  Henry  W.  Prescott      .  .  "  .50 

The  following  series  in  Graeco-Roman  Archaeology,  Egyptian  Archaeology,  Ameri- 
can Archaeology  and  Ethnology  and  Anthropological  Memoirs  are  publications  from  the 
Department  of  Anthropology: 

GRAECO-ROMAN   ARCHAEOLOGY.    (Large  Octavo). 

Vol.  1.    The  Tebtunis  Papyri,  Part  1.    Edited  by  Bernard  P.  Grenfell,  Arthur 
S.   Hunt,  and  J.  Gilbart  Smyly.     Pages  690,  Plates  9,  1902 

Price,  $16.00 

Vol.  2.    The  Tebtunis  Papyri,  Part  2  (in  press). 

Vol.  3.     The  Tebtunis  Papyri,  Part  3  (in  preparation). 

EGYPTIAN   ARCHAEOLOGY.     (Quarto). 

Vol.  1.     The  Hearst  Medical  Papyrus.     Edited  by  G.  A.  Reisner. 

Hieratic  text  in  17  facsimile  plates  in  collotype,  with  introduction  and 
vocabulary,  pages  48,  1905.  (J.  C.  Hinrichs,  Leipzig,  25  Marks) 
.        .        .      Price,  $8.00 

AMERICAN  ARCHAEOLOGY  AND    ETHNOLOGY.    (Octavo). 

Vol.1.     1903-1904.    378  pp.,  with  30  plates Price,  $4.25 

Vol.  2.     1904-1907.     392  pp.,  with  21  plates  and  map.      .        .        Price,     3.50 
Vol.  3.    The  Morphology  of  the  Hupa  Language,  by  Pliny  Earle  Goddard. 

Pages  344,  June,  1905 Price,     3.50 

Vol.  4.    No.  1.    The    Earliest   Historical    Relations   between   Mexico   and 

Japan,  by  Zelia  Nuttall.     Pages  47,  April,  1906.      .  Price,       .50 

No.  2.    Contributions  to  the  Physical  Anthropology  of  California, 
by  A.  Hrdlicka.     Pages  16,  Tables  5,  Plates  10,  June,  1906. 

Price,       .75 

No.  3.    Shoshonean    Dialects   of   California,    by  A.   L.   Kroeber. 

Pages  100,  February,  1907 Price,     1.50 

No.  4.     Indian  Myths  of  South  Central  California,  by  A.  L.  Kroeber. 

Pages  84,  May  1907. Price,       .75 

Vol.  5.     No.  1.    The  Phonology  of  the  Hupa  Language:  Part  I,  The  Indi- 
vidual Sounds,  by  Pliny  Earle  Goddard.     Pages  20,  Plates  8, 

March,  1907 Price,       .35 

Vol.  6.    The  Ethno-Geography   of   the   Porno    Indians,    by   S.   A.    Barrett 

(in  press). 
Vol.  7.    No.  1.    The  Emeryville  Shellmound,  by  Max  Uhle.     Pages  106, 

Plates  12,  June,  1907 Price,     1.25 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA    PUBLICATIONS 

IN 

CLASSICAL   PHILOLOGY 

Vol.  1,  No.  7,  pp.  205-262.  June  17,  1907 


SOME   PHASES   OF   THE   RELATION   OF 
THOUGHT  TO  VERSE  IN  PLAUTUS 

BY 

HENRY    W.    PRESCOTT. 

In  his  study  of  the  Saturnian  verse  Leo  has  recently  stated 
his  conception  of  the  relation  of  thought  to  verse  in  early  Latin 
poetry:  "  in  early  Latin  verse,"  Leo  says,  with  reference  espec- 
ially to  the  Saturnian,  "  verse  and  sentence  are  identical;  art- 
poetry  in  its  beginnings"  (and  he  refers  to  Plautus  as  illustra- 
tive of  the  principle),"  when  sentence-structure  was  developing, 
resisted  this  inherent  recpiirement  and  limited  itself  to  the  norm 
by  which  words  in  the  sentence  intimately  connected  in  thought 
were  not  separated  by  the  verse  unless  the  separation  was  justi- 
fied by  special  considerations:  externally,  by  reason  of  length,  or 
by  the  colligation  of  words  through  alliteration  or  other  means 
of  connection;  internally,  by  reason  of  emphasis  or  some  stylistic 
effect  of  the  word  thus  separated."1 

xtl  Vers  und  Satz  fallen  urspriinglich  zusaminen;  .  .  .  Die  Kunstporsir 
hat  in  ihren  Anfiingen,  wie  sich  die  Satzbildung  lniiehtig  entwickelte,  mit 
dieser  der  Pocsie  innewohnenden  Forderuug  gekiinipft  und  sie  auf  die 
Norm  besclnankt,  dass  im  Satze  eng  zusaminengekorige  Worter  nicht 
durch  den  Vers  getrennt  werden  diirfen,  werni  sick  nickt  die  Trennun^ 
dureh  einen  besonderen  Umstand  als  berechtigt  erweist;  aiisserlick  durch 
Liinge,  durck  allitterirende  oder  andere  einander  suchende  und  anziehende 
Wortverbindungen.  innerlick  durck  Nackdruck  oder  sonst  stilistiscke  Absickt 
des  jrcsoiulprten  Worts.  So  ersckeint  der  Gebrauck  bei  Plautus  ausgebildet.  " 
Der  saturniscke  Vers  14  =  Abkandl.  Gutting.  Gesell.    (1905). 

In  1S81  Buecheler  reminded  Schoell  tkat  only  prouoininal  adjectives 
were  separated  from  tkeir  nouns  by  tke  verse-end,  that  almost  no  other 
adjectives  were  so  treated,  in  the  text  of  Plautus  (Truculent  us,  ed. 
Sckoell,   praefatio   XLV,   n.    1).     Buecheler    repeated   this   admonition    in 


206  University  of  California  Publications.    [Class  Phil. 

Leo  has  left  to  others  the  task  of  testing  the  validity  of  his  law. 
I  have  attempted  to  gather  and  study  the  evidence  offered  by  one 
group  of  examples  in  Plautus,  the  cases  in  which  adjectival 
words,  whether  ordinary  attributives,  pronominal  adjectives,  or 
numerals,  are  separated  from  their  substantives  by  the  verse. 
In  many  respects  the  study  must  be  descriptive:  the  lack  of 
similar  studies  in  Greek  poetry,  and  the  fragmentary  remains  of 
earlier  Latin  poetry,  usually  of  uncertain  metrical  constitution, 
retard  a  convincing  account  of  Plautus 's  position  in  the  histor- 
ical development  of  verse-technique.  Nor  will  it  be  just  to  con- 
firm  or  refute  Leo's  theory  until  other  phases  of  the  problem  in 
Plautus,  and  the  corresponding  phenomena  in  Greek  poetry  are 
investigated.  For  the  present,  the  study  may  suggest  points 
of  view  and  methods  of  approach,  which  will  doubtless  need  read- 
justment as  the  problem  is  studied  in  its  larger  aspects. 


Among  the  features  that  Leo  enumerates  as  justifying  separa- 
tion is  length:  this  element  may  be  a  matter  of  syllables,  or  in 
addition  to  syllables  may  include  an  extension  of  thought.  That 
is,  a  given  word  may  be  long,  or  a  thought-unit  involving  several 
words  may  be  long.  In  either  case,  it  is  not  at  once  clear  that 
Length  occasions  the  separation.     If,  however,  as  appears  to  be 


Rh.  Mus.  41  (1887)  312.  In  1893  Appulm  published  his  dissertation: 
Quaestiones  Plautinae.  Quae  rationes  inter  versus  singulos  sententiasque 
intercedant  Plauti  exemplo  comprobatur  (Marburg).  Interpretative 
analysis  was  impossible  in  this  attempt  to  cover  a  Large  field  within  the 
Compass  of  a  doctor's  dissertation. 

Nbrden  summarizes  the  usage  of  Vergil  in  Aeneis  Buch  VI,  390-391. 
For  references  to  studies  of  the  general  question  of  the  collocation  of 
words,  as  well  as  of  the  special  question  under  consideration,  cf.  the  same 
work  382  n.  1,  and  the  same  author's  Die  antike  Kunstprosa  I  68  n.  1. 

In  the  present  paper  the  song-measures  are  excluded;  I  have  not  know- 
ingly included  examples  from  such  passages  except  for  comparative  pur- 
poses,  ami  then  their  provenance  is  stated.  I  may  be  open  to  criticism  in 
nut  dividing  the  material  with  reference  to  the  metre  of  the  verses  con- 
cerned;  bul  the  results  show  no  important  differences  between  the  tech- 
nique of  the  iambic  and  trochaic  verses,  or  of  the  shorter  and  longer 
verses,  except  such  as  may  more  convenient  ly  be  described  parenthetically, 
and  a    metrical  classification   interferes  with  clearness  of  presentation. 


Vol.  l]      Prescott.— Thought   and    Verst    in   Plautus.  207 

the  case,2  words  of  five  or  more  syllables  that  are  metrically  suit- 
able regularly  tend  to  the  end  of  the  verse,  or  less  frequently  to 
the  beginning,  it  follows  that,  if  such  a  word  is  a  substantive  or 
adjective,  the  difficulties  in  combining  the  two  members  of  the 
pair  in  one  verse  are  much  greater  than  they  otherwise  would  be. 
And  similarly,  a  thought-unit  consisting  of  a  substantive  and 
several  adjectives,  wherever  they  may  be  disposed  in  the  verse, 
will  by  reason  of  the  number  of  syllables,  easily  overflow  into 
the  next  verse. 

In  a  thorough  treatment  of  Leo's  theory  predicative  expres- 
sions should  be  included.  The  consciousness  of  verse-unity 
could  not  be  better  illustrated  than  in  these  two  couplets : 

isque  hie  compressit  virginem  adulescentulus 
(vi),  vinulentus,  multa  nocte,  in  via.      (Cist.  158) 

quom  hasce  herbas  huius  modi  in  suom  alvom  eongerunt 
formidulosas  dictu,  non  essu  modo.      (Ps.  823) 

But  such  cases  of  predicative  expressions,  involving  long  words, 
are  apart  from  our  immediate  purpose.  There  are,  however,  a 
few  cases  of  adjectives  following  their  substantives  (either  adjec- 
tive or  substantive  is  of  great  length)  and  not  so  clearly  pre- 
dicative. Their  position  makes  it  possible  that  they  amplify  the 
meaning,  in  which  case  this  amplifying  force  as  well  as  length 
justify  the  separation.  Most  of  these  adjectives  are  derived 
from  proper  nouns;  and  since  in  almost  all  cases  the  adjectives 
stand  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse  it  is  significant  to 
note  that  in  Oscan  and  Umbrian  proper  adjectives  usually  follow 
their  nouns  :3 

Philopolemum  vivom,  salvom'et  sospitem 
vidi  in  publica  celoce,  ibidemque  ilium  aduleacentulum 
Aleum  una  et  tuom  Stalagmum  servom  (Capt.  873) 


-  In  the  Mostellaria,  for  example,  out  of  90  cases  of  words  of  five  or 
more  syllables,  two-thirds  stand  at  the  end  of  a  verse;  of  the  remain- 
ing third  all  but  two  are  metrically  impossible  at  the  end.  On  the  other 
hand  words  of  four  syllables  are  freely  disposed  in  the  interior  of  the 
verse.  Five  syllables  is,  therefore,  assumed  to  be  the  minimum  of  length 
which  may  be  regarded  as  offering  difficulty. 

3Nilsson,  de  collocatione  pron.  adj.  apud  Plant  nni  et  Terentium 
10  =  bunds  Pniversitets  Ars-skrift  37    (1901). 


208  University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 

non  ego  te  : i ■  1  ilium  duco  dentatum  virum 
Macedoniensem,  qui  te  nunc  flentem  facit:    (Ps.  104n ) 

quern    propter,   o   mea    vita? — propter   militem 
Babyloniensem,  qui  quasi  uxorem  sibi   (True.  391) 

sed  illi   patruo  huiua  qui  vivit   senex 
Carthaginiensi  duae  fuere  filiae:   (Poen.  83) 

These  examples  are  of  somewhat  different  value.  In  the  first 
case,  the  length  of  adulescentulum  and  its  consequent  position 
(of  fifteen  occurrences  of  the  word  thirteen  are  at  the  end  of  the 
verse)  are  the  controlling  factors :  Aleum  is  no  more  amplifying 
than  in  vs.  169  of  the  same  play  (nam  cecum  hie  captivom 
adulescentem  (intus)  Aleum,  \  prognatum  genere  sunnno  et 
sum m is  (I if iis)  where  the  adjective  is  kept  in  the  same  verse  with 
its  shorter  noun.  The  next  two  examples  are  alike  in  having  the 
separated  adjective  followed  by  the  caesural  pause  and  an  ex- 
planatory gwi-clause.4  In  the  last  example,  too,  we  have  the 
caesura!  pause.  Plautine  usage  of  these  adjectives  points  to 
length  as  the  influential  factor.  Carthaginiensis  occurs  only  at 
the  beginning  of  the  verse  (Poen.  59,  84,  963,  997,  1377)  with 
one  exception  (1124).  Babyloniensis  is  less  constant:  at  the 
beginning  in  True.  81,  penultimate  word  in  True.  203  (here, 
however,  iambic  septenarius;  in  the  other  cases,  senarii)  ;  in  all 
three  cases  the  same  phrase  occurs.  So  we  get  militem  j  Baby- 
loniensem  (391),  |  Babyloniensem  militem  (81),  Babyloniensis 
mil'  s  |  (203).  It  is  clear  that  length  and  metrical  conditions  are 
potent.  Macedonicnsis  does  not  occur  again:  Mace  don  i  us  takes 
its  place  (Ps.  51,  316,  616,  1090,  1152,  1162),  and  in  all  the 
cases  except  one  (346)  it  stands  at  the  end,  different  metrical 
constitution  making  it  convenient  in  that  position:  in  all  the 
cases  of  Macedonius,  however,  separation  is  avoided  except  in  the 
following  couplet: 
'<T.   True.  83: 

quern  antehac  odiosum  sibi  esse  memorabat  mala, 
Babyloniensem  militem:  is  nunc  dicitur 
veuturus  peregre: 

here  the  adjective  is  not  separated,  and  a  demonstrative  resumes  the  de- 
scription. For  relative  clauses  defining  separated  adjectives  cf.  Seymour, 
Ilarv.  Stud.  Ill  (1892)  98  ff.,  and  for  explanatory  clauses  after  a  separate! 
demonstrative  in    Plautus  cf.  below,  p.   252. 


Vol.  l]       Prescott — Thought  and   Verse   in   Plan  his.  209 

Pseudolus  tuos  allegavit  hunc,  quasi  a  Macedonio 
milite  esset.     (Ps.  1162) 

In  this  case  the  adjective  precedes,  and  the  unity  of  thought  is 
seriously  affected.  Such  a  ease  strengthens  our  feeling  that  in 
the  examples  in  which  the  adjective  follows  its  noun,  it  is  not  so 
much  the  amplifying  force,  which  is  difficult  to  prove,  as  it  is  the 
length  that  conduces  to  separation. 

In  a  few  cases  of  ordinary  attributives,  however,  the  thought, 
quite  as  much  as  the  length,  justifies  the  separation: 

quom  sexaginta  milia  hominum  uno  die 
volaticorum   manibus   oecidi   meis.      (Poen.   472) 

The  swaggering  antithesis  of  G0.000  and  a  single  day5  occupies 
the  first  verse,  and  crowds  out  volaticorum;  but  this  adjective  is 
in  itself  of  a  length  that  makes  it  most  adaptable  to  the  extremes 
of  the  verse — so  in  the  conversation  that  follows  our  passage : 

volaticorum  hominum  ? — ita   dico   quidem. 

— an,   opsecro,   usquam   sunt   homines   volatici  ? 

Plautus  is  no  slave  to  such  external  conditions,  however,  for  the 
adjective  by  its  separation  and  prominence  produces  the  climax 
of  surprising  absurdity  after  the  antithesis  of  the  preceding 
verse.  Nor  is  it  far-fetched  to  suggest  that  the  juxtaposition  of 
volaticorum  and  manibus,  "  wings  "  and  "  hands,"  is  not  acci- 
dental. In  both  of  the  following  cases  the  rest  of  the  second 
verse  is  an  explanation  of  the  separated  adjective  or  substan- 
tive,6 which  stands  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse  before 
a  strong  pause : 

ut  in  ocellis  liilaritudo  est,  heia,  corpus  cuius  modi, 

subvolturium — illud   quidem,   subaquilum   volui   dieere.      (Rud.    421) 

novi,  Neptunus  ita  solet,  quamvis  fastidiosus' 

aedilis  est;  si  quae  improbae  sunt  merces,  iactat  omnis.      (Rud.  372) 


5  Cf.  Aul.  70,  Aul.  frag.  3. 

"Leo,  Analecta  Plautina:  de  figuris  sermonia  II  31,  refers  to  the  word- 
play in  BubvoZturium — volxn.  For  a  slightly  different  explanation  of  a 
separated  adjective  cf.  below,  p.  224.  More  like  our  present  example,  but 
with  a  play  on  verbs,  is  Frivolaria,  frag.  8. 

7  In  the  only  other  occurrence  of  the  adjective,  fastidiosus  is  in  the  same 
position    (M.  G.   1233). 


210  University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 

There  may  be  a  difference  of  opinion  in  the  interpretation  of  the 

second  example:  perhaps  the  second  verse  explains  fastidiosus 
rather  than  aedilis.  But  in  any  case  a<<lilis  comes  in  as  a  sur- 
prise and.  as  in  the  first  example,  the  separation  and  the  position 
of  the  unexpected  idea  enhance  the  effect. 

It  is,  of  course,  true  that  the  separation  seems  more  violent  in 
the  second  case  than  in  the  first  because  the  adjective  precedes. 
Similarly  in  these  examples: 

quo  modo  me  ludos  fecisti  tie  ilia  condueticia 

fidicina? — factum  hercle  vero,  et  recte  factum  iudieo.      (Ep.  706) 

volo  deludi  illunc,  dum  cum  hac  usuraria 
uxore  nunc  mihi   morigero.      (Amph.   980) 

In  both  of  these  the  long  prepositional  phrase,  quite  apart  from 
the  long  adjective,  makes  separation  almost  inevitable.8  Without 
a  preposition  the  accusative  case  fidicinam — conducticiam  is  ac- 
commodated in  a  single  verse  in  Ep.  313;  whereas  the  same 
phrase  with  uxoraria  escapes  separation  only  by  occupying  an 
entire  verse: 

cum    Alcumena    uxore    usuraria.       (Amph.    498) 

The  significant  fact  is  that  in  all  the  few  occurrences  of  condueti- 
cia and  usuraria  the  adjectives  stand  at  the  end  of  the  verse 
(Cure.  382,  True.  72).  The  same  position  is  the  regular  habitat 
of  praesentarius,  so  that  the  following  separation  may  in  large 
measure  be  referred  to  the  length  of  the  adjective: 

vendidit  tuos  natus  aedis. — perii. — praesenUuiis 

argenti    minis    numeratis. — quot  ? — quadraginta. — occidi.      (Trin.    1081) 

(For  other  cases  of  this  adjective  at  the  end.  Most.  361,  913, 
Poen.  705,  793.)  The  explosive  alliteration  in  the  first  verse 
may,  from  Leo's  standpoint,  partially  reestablish  the  unity  of 
that  verse;  indeed,  from  an  English  point  of  view  the  idea  "cash 
down"  is  a  separable  idea,0  but  we  may  not  safely  attribute  it 
to  praesentarius. 

The  fact  that  ar</<>ili  minis  constitutes  an  almost  inseparable 


The  alliteration  in  Ep.  707  is  also  to  be  noted. 
1  <  If.  mutuos,  below,  p.  23  \. 


Vol.  l]       Prcscott. — Thought   and   Verse    in   Plautus.  211 

unit  (usually  at  the  end  or  beginning  of  a  verse)  adds  to  the 
difficulty.  This  brings  us  to  examples  of  long  thought-units 
Such  thought-units  may  be  of  two  sorts :  a  substantive  attended 
by  a  succession  of  adjectives  of  equal  value,  e.  g.  "a  long,  lean, 
rascally,  devil  of  a  fellow  "  ;  or  a  substantive  accompanied  by 
attributive  modifiers  of  unequal  value,  e.  g.  "my  own  twin 
sister."  Our  author  is  fond  of  billingsgate,  and  offers  a  richer 
store  of  the  first  variety  of  compounds  than  we  may  quote.  In 
general  it  may  be  said  that  such  a  succession  of  adjectives  is 
usually  so  disposed  as  to  accentuate  the  unity  of  the  verses:  the 
substantive  usually  precedes  or  is  embraced  between  groups  of 
attributives ;  the  thought  is  in  a  measure  complete,  and  the  vir- 
tues or  vices  or  indifferent  qualities  either  run  over  into  several 
verses  or  occasionally  are  bound  within  a  single  verse,  in  either 
case  without  serious  disturbance  of  verse-unity.  A  few  examples 
will  illustrate  these  characteristics: 

nisi  mihi  supplicium  virgeum  (MSS.  virgarum)   de  te  datur 
longum,  diutinumque,  a  mane  ad  vesperum.     (M.  G.  502) 

stat  propter  virum 
fortem  atque  fortunatum  et  forma  regia.     (M.  G.  9,  cf.  56-57) 

ecquem 
recalvom  ad  Silanum  senem,  statutum,  ventriosuin, 
tortis  superciliis,  contraeta  fronte,  fraudulentum, 
deorum  odium  atque  hominum,  malum,  mali  viti  probrique  plenum, 
qui  dueeret  mulierculas  duas  secum  satis  venustas?      (Rud.  316) 

For  other  examples,  Bacch.  280  (if  Leo's  strigosum  is  accepted), 
Cas.  767,  Men.  402,  487,  M.  G.  88,  Ps.  724,  974,  Rud.  125,  313, 
True.  287.  In  the  examples  quoted  other  obvious  features  will 
be  noticed :  in  the  first,  intensification  of  one  idea  in  one  verse ; 
in  the  second,  initial  rhyme.  There  are  a  few  cases  of  a  succes- 
sion of  two  or  three  adjectives  in  which  the  unity  is  not  so 
obvious : 

ut  aliquem  hominem  strenuom 
benevolentem  adducerem  ad  te.     (Ps.  697) 

post  altrinsei'ust  securicula  ancipes,  itidem  aurea 
litterata:  ibi  matris  nomen  in  securiculast.10     (Bud.  1158) 


Cf.  Rud.  478,  1156-1157. 


212  University  of  California   Publications.    [Class  Phil. 

il>i  nunc  statuam  volt  dare  auream 
solidam"  faciundam  ex  auro  PMlippo,  (Cure.  439) 

Tii  all  of  these  the  noun  and  one  adjective  (or  two)  stand  in  the 
lirst  verse  so  that  the  thought  is  practically  complete;  bcncvolcn- 
iem,  and  aurea  (as  we  shall  see  presently),  are  metrically  con- 
venient in  the  places  which  they  occupy;  the  separated  adjectives 
all  stand  at  the  beginnings  of  their  respective  verses  and  are 
not  without  emphasis;  it  is  also  to  he  noticed  that  Jittcrata  is 
explained  in  the  rest  of  the  verse. 

Of  the  second  variety  of  thought-units,  two  occur  with  sufficient 
frequency  to  he  of  significance.  These  are  the  expressions  for 
"  own  twin  sister,  brother,  son,"  often  accompanied  by  a  pleo- 
nastic numeral  when  the  expression  is  in  the  plural;  and  the 
phrase  for  a  sum  of  money  in  which  nummi  aurei  Philippi  in 
various  arrangements,  with  an  accompany  in  g  numeral  or  further 
attribute,  makes  an  elaborate  complex.  This  latter  phrase  is 
usually  from  eight  to  thirteen  syllables  in  extent,  and  on  five 
occasions  the  longer  varieties  run  over  into  a  second  verse:12 

sunt  tibi  intus  aurei 
trecenti   minimi    Plrilippi? — sescenti  quoque.      (Poen.   165) 

qui  mini  mille  minimum  crederet 
PMlippum,     (Trim  954) 

atque  etiam  Philippum,  numeratum  illius  in  mensa  maim, 
mille  numnmni.      (Trin.  965) 

hie  sunt  numerati  aurei 
trecenti   minimi  qui  vocantur  Philippei.      (Poen.   713) 

nam  dueentis  aureis 
Philippis  redemi  vitam  ex  flagitio  tuam.     (Baech.  1010) 

On  the  contrary,  in  a  large  majority  of  cases  similar  varieties 
of  the  same  phrase,  not  always  with  aureus,  are  included  in  a 
single  verse:  As.  153,  Bacch.  230,  590,  882,  934,  1026,  Poen.  670, 
732.  Trin.  152,  959,  1158.13 


11  The  proximity  of  faciundam  gives  solidam  predicative  force  in  our 
passage:   cf.  <  icero,  de  div.  I,  24,  48. 

;-'lii  i'ers.  438  probi  numerati  are  probably  amplifying,  as  Leo  brings 
out   iii  liis  punctuation:  cf.  Pers.  52<>. 

J3  It  is  not  likely  that  in  any  of  these  phrases  there  was  any  violent 
separation  (cf.  for  the  usage  of  the  various  forms  Langen,  Beitriige  zur 
Kritik  u.   Erklarung   des   Plautus  85  ff.,  Brix   on   Trin.   844).     At   least   in 


Vol.  l]       Prescott— Thought   and    Verse   in   Plautus.  213 

There  are  a  dozen  instances  of  the  first  phrase,  including  more 
than  six  syllables,  and  of  these  only  two  escape  into  a  second 
verse;  these  two  are  of  eleven  and  ten  syllables: 

geminam  germanam  meant 

hie  sororem  esse  indaudivi:  earn  veni  quaesitum.     (M.  G.  441) 

spes  mihi  est  ves  inventurum  fratres  germanos  dims 
geminos,  una  matre  natos  et  patre  vino  uno  die.     (Men.  1102) 

The  second  of  these  (and  possibly  the  first14)  is  only  apparent 
separation:  geminos  is  followed  by  a  sense-pause  which  empha- 
sizes the  idea  as  amplifying,  and  the  elaboration  of  the  same 
idea  in  the  rest  of  the  same  verse  gives  a  distinct  unity  to  that 
verse.  Indeed,  geminus  is  elsewhere  in  the  same  play  a  sub- 
stantive :  Men.  26,  40,  68,  69,  and  if  the  prologue  is  of  dubious 
authorship  in  parts,  at  least  once  in  the  play  itself,  vs.  1120. 
In  nine  cases  long  forms  of  this  complex  are  confined  to  a  single 
verse:  Amph.  480,  cf.  1070,  Men.  18,  232,  1082,  1125,  M.  G.  238, 
383,  391,  717.  To  be  sure,  our  impression  that  this  situation 
points  to  a  sensitiveness  to  verse-unity  is  momentarily  disturbed 
when  we  find  a  much  shorter  form  of  the  same  phrase  running 

over : 

sicut  soror 

eius  hue  gemina  venit  Ephesum  et  mater  accersuntque  earn.      (M.   G.  974) 

Only  momentarily,  for  again  gemina  may  be  substantival; 
Palaestrio   may    be    working    upon    the    soldier    very   tactfully. 

the  'separation  of  nummus  Philippus,  the  use  of  Philip  pus  alone,  and  the 
examples  above  (Trin.  954,  965,  with  qui  vocantur  Philippei  in  Poen.  714), 
suggest  that  the  words  are  separable,  either  one  amplifying  the  other. 
When  aureus  (convenient  at  the  verse-end,  cf.  above  and  As.  153,  Bacch. 
230,  590,  934,  Trin.  1139)  is  a  part  of  the  phrase,  the  separation  seems 
more  violent ;  if,  however,  Bentley  's  emendation  of  Bacch.  230  is  right, 
there  would  be  some  evidence  of  a  substantival  aureus,  similar  to  the  usage 
of  later  times;  and  one  should  compare  the  usage  of  xpvaovc  as  a  substantive 
without  nrari/p  in  the  fragments  of  Greek  comedy:  Jacobi,  comicae  dictionis 
index  s.  v.  xPvao^r>-  The  separation  of  aureus  is  no  more  than  that  of  a 
material  genitive  as  in  Hipponax,  22,  4: 

teal  aa/ii3a?JoKa  HaonepiaKa  ml  xf/vooi) 
GTarr/fxir  eHqKOvra  rovripov  voi v"1. 

But  Plautus  does  not  separate  the  genitive   nuri  in   this   phrase. 

14  The  resumptive  earn  in  the  same  verse  with  sororem  may  help  to 
strengthen  the  unity  of  the  verse. 


214  University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 

slowly  unloading  his  ammunition,  "a  sister,  her  twin."  (So, 
perhaps,  also  in  vss.  47.'}  -174.)  And  Leo  might  add  that  the 
alliteration  in  sicut  soror  reasserts  the  unity  of  the  first  verse.15 

II. 

In  so  far  as  he  overcomes  the  obstacle  offered  by  length  in  a 
large  majority  of  cases,  Plautus  may  be  said  to  show  respect  for 
the  integrity  of  the  verse.  But  the  poet's  aversion  to  separation 
or  his  indifference  to  verse-unity  is  best  tested  by  conditions  in 
which  there  are  no  obstacles  in  the  length  of  words  or  thoughts. 
Some  general  considerations  will  help  us  to  appreciate  the  ex- 
amples. 

In  the  later  Republican  prose  the  substantive  is  often  sepa- 
rated from  its  attributive  by  intervening  words,  and  much  more 
frequently  in  poetry ;  so  far  as  I  know,  no  effort  has  been  made 
to  discover  whether  such  separation  is  regulated  by  any  laws  or 
not10 — whether,  for  example,  certain  attributives  are  more  separ- 
able than  others,  whether  the  intervening  words  are  of  some 
special  character,  etc.  Xorden17  has  already  pointed  out  that 
such  separation  in  early  Latin  prose  is,  as  regards  the  number 
and  the  nature  of  the  intervening  words,  subject  to  limitations. 
Altenburg18  has  collected  the  material :  usually  only  one  word 
intervenes,  or  if  more,  they  constitute  a  unit  of  thought.  From 
our  present  point  of  view  we  should  like  to  know  whether  the 
attributives  themselves  show  degrees  of  separability:  whether, 


15  Under  the  head  of  long  thought-units  should  come  Ep.  559,  in  which 
the  genitive  and  the  adjectives  constitute  an  inseparable  compound  and 
perhaps  account  for  the  escape  of  mulierem: 

accipe,     aerumnosam     et     miseriarum     compotem 
mulierem  retines. 

The  same  would  apply  to  Nonius's  reading  aerumnarum. 

10  Even  the  interpretation  of  the  material  under  discussion  in  this  paper 
would  be  facilitated  lis  a  study  of  the  collocation  of  adjective  and  sub- 
stantive within  the  verse,  quite  apart  from  the  question  of  separation  by 
the  verse. 

17  Die  antike  Kunstprosa  1  179-180,  and  180  n.  2. 

18  De  sermone  pedestri  Italorum  vetustissimo  =  JHB.  Supplbd.  2-1  (1898) 
523  ff. 


Vol.  l]       Prescott— Thought   and   Verse  in   Plautus.  215 

for  example,  the  separation  of  certain  pronominal  adjectives 
does  not  appear  earlier  than  that  of  ordinary  attributives. 
Perhaps  the  material  is  too  scanty  to  lead  to  convincing  gener- 
alization; tne  fact  that  in  Oscan  the  relative  adjective  is  very 
regularly  separated  from  its  noun  and  stands  at  the  opposite 
extreme  of  the  clause  lends  significance  to  a  similar  situation  in 
Plautus.19  Such  observations  as  Kaibel  makes  in  his  study  of 
Aristotle's  Athenian  Constitution20  would  affect  our  interpreta- 
tion of  many  examples  if  early  Latin  prose  showed  similar  char- 
acteristics: he  notes  that  certain  pronominal  adjectives  are 
separated  from  their  substantives  with  greater  frequency  and 
by  more  intervening  words  than  ordinary  attributives;  he  men- 
tions in  the  order  of  such  frequency  o7>to<>,  ttSs,  oAo?,  dAAot,  the 
relative,  to<tovto<;,  oo-os,  ouSei's,  6  ui>tos,  tis  ,•  but  the  last  seven  are 
naturally  represented  only  by  one  or  two  examples;  he  also  re- 
fers to  numerals,  but  without  mentioning  the  frequency  of 
separation  in  such  cases.  Altenburg's  examples  show  that  some 
of  the  corresponding  words  in  Latin  are  separated  in  early 
prose.21  When  we  add  thereto  that  in  Plautus,  quite  apart 
from  the  question  of  separation  within  the  verse,  the  cases  of 
separation  by  the  verse  and,  often,  by  intervening  words  as  well, 
show  a  relatively  large  number  of  pronominal  adjectives  and 
numerals,  we  may  suspect  that  some  influence  made  the  disturb- 
ance of  verse-unity  either  less  violent  or  more  imperative  than 
it  appears  to  us  and  than  it  perhaps  was  in  the  case  of  ordinary 
attributives:  in  Plautus  20  per  cent,  of  the  cases  of  separation 
by  the  verse-end  are  pronominal  adjectives,  25  per  cent,  posses- 
sive adjectives,  15  per  cent,  numerals.  That  is,  more  than  half 
arc  pronominal  words  and  numerals. 

A  step  towards  the  explanation  of  some  of  these  phenomena 
has  been  taken  by  Wackernagel,22  though  without  reference  to 
the  matter  of  verse-unity.  His  investigations  in  Indogermanic 
languages,  especially  Greek  and  Latin,  bring  to  Light  survivals 

1U  Altenburg,  1.  c.  530;  Norden,  1.  c.  I  181  n.  1. 
-°  Stil  u.  Text  der  TlnMTEia  'Adr/vaiuv  des  Aristoteles  99  ff. 
21  For  example,  ceteri,  omnes,  numerals  including   nullus,  alter,   tantus, 
qui   (rel.),  quis   (indef.). 

-Indog.   Forseh.   I   4<U>  IT.  ( 'f.   Delbriiek,  Synt.-ikt.    Forseli.    Ill   47. 


216  University  of  California  Publications.    [Class  Phil. 

of  a  law  by  which  short  enclitic  words  lend  to  the  beginning  of 
;i  sentence,  usually  to  the  second  place.  Pronominal  words  are 
often  enclitics,  and  some  pronominal  adjectives  are  directly 
affected  by  this  law.  Others  arc  indirectly  affected;  for  the  law 
of  pronominal  attraction,  combined  with  Wackernagel's  law, 
will  sometimes  bring  pronominal  words  that  may  or  may  not  be 
enclitics  to  at  least  the  third  place  in  the  sentence.  Snch  laws 
have  precedence  of  the  natural  attraction  of  the  adjective  to  its 
substanl  ive. 

A  few  other  laws  affect  the  collocation  of  words  so  fundamen- 
tally that  verse-unity  must  waive  its  claims,  whenever  it  con- 
flicts. Words  of  the  same  category  are  attracted  to  one  another. 
Certain  formulas  exist  for  the  expression  of  certain  ideas,  e.  g.. 
of  oaths.  Groups  of  words  in  Plantns  have  been  studied  and 
peculiarities  of  collocation  discovered.  Most  of  these  conditions 
reflect  the  usage  of  ordinary  speech.  But  there  are  other  arti- 
ficial combinations — whether  due  to  the  influence  of  rhetoric  or 
nof  we  may  not  always  say — resulting  often  in  the  interlocking 
of  words  and  the  consequent  separation  of  words  that  are  syn- 
tactically connected.  All  snch  factors  must  he  appreciated. 
Apparent  violation  of  verse-unity  may  he  only  conservation  of 
these  natural  or  artificial  collocations.23 

Some  nf  these  general  considerations  account  for  the  separate 
treatment  of  ordinary  attributives,  possessive  adjectives,  other 
pronominal  adjectives,  and  numerals.  All  of  them  will  make 
more  intelligible  the  discussion  of  individual  passages. 

In  this  discussion  I  do  not  wish  to  he  understood  as  represent- 
ing flic  attendant  features  to  he  the  cause  of  separation  or  atone- 
ment for  separation;  that  would  he  begging  an  important  ques- 
tion. In  viewing  the  problem  of  verse-unity  with  reference  to 
Leo's  theory,  it  is  apparent  that  the  cases  of  separation  are  often 
all  ended  hy  snch  features  as  Leo  regards  to  be  justifications  for 


-3  On  the  various  matters  here  briefly  referred  to  cf.  Langen,  Eh.  Mus. 
12  (1857)  426  ff.;  Kellerhof,  de  collocatione  verborum  Plautina  =  Stude- 
mund-Stud.  II  49  ff.;  Kampf,  de  pronominum  personaliuro  usu  et  collo- 
catione ap.  poet,  scaen.  Rom.  16  ff.  =  Berliner  Studien  III  (1886);  Leo, 
Bemerkungen  iiber  plautinische  Wortstellungen  u.  Wortgruppen  =  Nach- 
richt.  Gotting.  Gesell.  (1895)  416,  432-433;  Norden,  A.eneis  Buch  VI,  386. 


Vol.  l]       Preseott. — Thought   and   Verse   in   Plautus.  217 

separation :  a  descriptive  paper  notes  the  appearance  of  such 
features.  Quite  apart  from  this  descriptive  treatment  is  the 
important  question  which  Leo's  theory  involves,  namely:  is 
Plautus,  under  the  influence  of  earlier  Latin  poetry,  conscious 
of  verse-unity  in  the  sense  that  all  cases  of  separation  must  be 
justified  by  special  considerations?  Granting  that  these  fea- 
tures attend  separation,  there  is  the  further  question :  may  any 
or  all  of  these  be  proved  to  be  necessarily  involved  in  the  relation 
of  thought  to  verse  ?  For  example,  alliteration  is  inherent  in 
Plautus 's  style:  may  not  its  appearance  have  nothing  to  do  with 
verse-unity?-4  Furthermore,  granting  that  Plautus  is  conscious 
of  the  individuality  of  each  verse,  which  may  hardly  be  denied, 
such  consciousness  may  arise  in  one  of  several  ways :  a  poet  may 
be  under  the  influence  of  a  primitive  form  of  verse  in  which 
verse  and  sentence  are  identical — so  Plautus  in  Leo's  theory;  or 
he  may  be  far  removed  from  any  such  influence  and  yet  pre- 
serve the  unity  of  the  verse — which  is  not  necessarily  lost  sight 
of  entirely  even  in  advanced  stages  of  verse-development — eithei 
for  the  purpose  of  bringing  into  relief  units  of  thought,  or  as  a 
concession  to  an  artificial  tendency  of  his  time.20  On  a  priori 
grounds  Plautus 's  attitude  towards  verse-unity  may  well  be  sus- 
pected of  being  affected  by  the  Saturnian  verse:  he  is,  however, 
adapting  Greek  comedies,  and  the  verse-technique  of  his  Greek 
sources  had  reached  a  much  higher  point  than  contemporary 
Latin  verse.  This  counter-influence  must  be  reckoned  with  in 
any  a  priori  reasoning.  Leo  would  be  the  first  to  recognize  the 
validity  of  this  contention. 

None  of  these  important  questions  is  begged-in  the  following 
descriptive  treatment.  Some  of  them  may  be  considered  by  way 
of  conclusion,  but  many  of  them  cannot  he  settled  in  a  study  <>i' 
a  few  phases  of  verse-unity.  The  division  of  adjectives  is  but  a 
small  part  of  word-division,  and  word-division  is  but  a  part  of 


-*  Of  course  the  fad  thai  alliterative  groups  are  usually  limited  to 
a  single  verse  in  itself  shows  a  consciousness  of  verse  unity.  The  question 
at  issue  is  whether  a  noun  or  adjective  is  separated  lor  the  purpose  of 
bringing  it  into  an  alliterative  group. 

-:'Such  an  artificial  preservation  of  unity  appears  in  Bion:  ef.  Wilamo- 
witz,  Adonis  ;;s_:i»>. 


218  University  of  California  Publications.    [Class  Phil. 

a  larger  topic  which  includes  the  division  of  the  larger  units  of 
thought,  phrases  and  clauses. 

III. 

When  an  attributive  follows  its  substantive  it  is  often  possible 
that  the  adjective  is  amplifying;  each  case  must  be  interpreted 
with  reference  to  the  context,  but  the  mere  possibility  justifies 
us  in  distinguishing  between  (a)  adjectives  that  follow,  and  (b) 
those  that  precede  their  substantives.  Further  classification 
might  be  desirable,  for  example,  with  reference  to  whether  or 
not  words  intervene  between  the  adjective  and  noun ;  but  this 
would  confuse  the  discussion.  I  have  persuaded  myself  from 
an  inspection  of  the  Mostellaria  that  the  number  and  the  nature 
of  the  words  that  intervene  between  adjective  and  noun  within 
the  verse  are  the  same  in  the  corresponding  situation  when  a 
verse-end  also  intervenes.  In  some  cases  it  may  well  be  argued 
thai  verse-unity  was  sacrificed  to  the  normal  collocation  of 
words.  The  equally  important  question  whether  within  the 
verse  the  collocation  of  adjective  and  noun  and  intervening 
words  is  ever  abnormal  for  the  sake  of  preserving  verse-unity  is 
not  within  the  limits  of  this  paper. 

(a) 

It  is  not  easy  to  draw  a  line  between  purely  predicative  and 
amplifying  adjectives.  The  former,  as  we  saw  in  examples  of 
long  adjectives,  are  often  set  off  in  a  separate  verse;  many  are 
participial : 

is  ex  se  hunc  reliquit  qui  hie  nunc  habitat  filium 
pariter  moratum  ut  pater  avosque  huius  fuit.      (Aul.  21) 

cur  inclementer  dicis  lepidis  litteris 

lepidia  tabellis  lepida  conscriptis  manuf     (Ps.  27) 

vilirus  is  cum  corona,  candide 

vestitus,  lautus,  exornatusque  ambulat.      (Cas.  7G7) 

Somewhat   different   in   effect,  but   equally  separable   are  these 
participial  adjectives: 

miles  lenoni  Ballioni  epistulam 

conscriptam  mittit  Polymaehaeroplagides,  (Ps.  998) 


Vol.  i]       Prcscott. — Thought   and   Verse   in  Plautus.  219 

hominem  cum   ornamentis   omnibus 
exornatum  addueite  ad  me  iam  ad  trapezitam  Aeschinum.      (Ps.   756) 

et  tu  gnatarn  tuam 
ornatam  adduce  lepide  iu  peregrinum  modum.     (Pers.  157) 

"Writes  and  sends,"  "dress  up  and  bring"  may  suggest  the 
effect  of  such  separation.  Such  examples,  in  which  the  verbal 
element  is  prominent,  are  hardly  within  the  scope  of  this  paper.20 
I  take  it  that  the  following  group  of  cases  will  not  be  regarded 
as  illustrating  real  separation ;  predicative  or  amplifying  as  you 
please,  the  suggestion  of  physical  or  emotional  distress  is  an 
afterthought,  which  separation  by  the  verse-end  and  intervening 
words,  and  position  in  close  connection  with  caesura  or  diaeresis 
accentuate : 

item  parasiti  rebus  prolatis  latent 

in  occulto  miseri,  victitant  suco  suo.     (Capt.  82) 

ecastor  lege 'dura  vivont  mulieres 

multoque  iniquiore  miserae  quam  viri.      (Merc.  817) 

itaque  nos  ventisque  rluctibusque 
iai-tatae  exemplis  plurumis  miserae27  perpetuam  noctem;    (Eud.  369) 

ilia  autem  virgo  atque  altera  itidem  ancillula 

de  navi  timidae  desuluerunt  in  scapham.      (Eud.  74) 

ibi  me  nescio  quis  arripit 
timidam  atque  pavidam,  nee  vivam  nee  mortuam.      (Cure.  6-48) 

A  similar  pathetic  effect  is  evident  in 

mulierculas 
video  sedentis  in  scapha  solas  duas.      (Eud.  162) 


26  Nor  present  participles  as  in 

nam  istaec  quae  tibi  renuntiantur,  filiuin 

te    velle    amantem    argento    circumducere,    (Ps.    430) 

27  So,  preceding  a  pronoun,  in  a  lyrical  context: 

sed  muliebri  animo  sum  tamen:   miserae   (quom  venit)   in  mentem 

mi  hi  mortis,  metu  membra  occupat.      (Eud.  685) 

Note    the    alliteration    carried    through    the    couplet    with    pathetic    effect. 
Another  example,  of  miseni  following  a  pronoun: 

P<>1  me  quidem 
miseram   odio   enicavit.      (As.   920) 


220  University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 

Nor  will  there  be  any  doubt  that  these  adjectives  are  inde- 
pendent : 

nunc  equos  iunetos  inl  es 
capere  me  indomitos,  ferocis,  (Men.  862) 

Conviva   commodus  in  M.   G.   612   does  not  prevent  the  same 

adjective  from  becoming  an  amplifying  expression  with  the  same 

noun  in 

eonvivaa  volo 
reperire  nobis  commodos,  qui  una  sient.     (Poen.  615) 

Here  the  noun  and  adjective  appear  at  the  extremes  of  the  sen- 
tence after  and  before  pauses.28  In  the  following  case  the  con- 
text shows  that  frigidam  is  predicative;  calefieri  finds  its  anti- 
thesis in  adponi  frigidam: 

calefieri  iussi  reliquias — pernam  quidem 

ins  est  adponi  frigidam  postridie.      (Pers.   105) 

"Served  up  cold"  is  clearly  the  idea.29 

Nor  may  I  admit  as  indubitable  cases  of  real  separation  such 
substantival  adjectives  as  virgo  and  posticum: 

eius  cupio  filiam 
virginem  mini  desponderi.      (Aul.  172) 

est  etiam  hie  ostium 
aliud   posticum  nostrarum  harunc  aedium:    (St.  419) 

Filiola  virgo  (Rud.  39)  and  virginem  gnatam  suam  (Trin.  113) 
may  support  the  adjectival  force  of  the  first  adjective,  but  in 
any  case  the  separation  in  our  passage  defines  filia  and  contrasts 
the  daughter  of  Euclio  with  the  middle-aged  woman  of  Mega- 
dorus's  previous  remarks  (162). 30     As  for  posticum,  it  is  clearly. 


28  The  adjective  moJcstum  in  the   following  verses  is  more  closely  con- 
nected  with  the  infinitive: 

et  impudicum  et  impudentem  hominem  addecet 
molestum  ultro  advenire  ad  alienam   domum,    (Bud.   115) 
Ai.|   une  will  not  take  luculentum    (luculente  P)    as  anything  but   predica- 
tive (Ep.  158)  after  comparing  vs.  311  of  the  same  play. 
-  ■•  If. 

nieniini:   ut  muraena  et  conger  ne  calefierent : 
nam   nimio   melius  oppectuntur   frigida.    '(Pers.   110) 
80  So.   luit    with   dearly  expressed   contrast    in   the  second    verse,   the   com- 
pound virgo  civis  is  divided  in 

an  paulum  hoc  esse  tilii  videtur,  virginem 

vitiare  civen:.'     cnnservain  esse  credidi.      (Ter.  Eun.  857) 


Vol.  ij       Prescott. — Thought  and  Verse   in  Plant  us.  221 

a  substantive  in  Most.  931,  and  so  its  diminutive  in  Trin.  194, 
1085;  in  the  Stichus,  if  not  an  appositive,  it  defines  ostium."1 
The  separation  of  aliud  does  not  here  concern  us. 

In  connection  with  substantival  adjectives  another  passage  in 
the  Aulularia  is  to  be  considered: 

namque  hoc  qui  dicat :  quo  illae  nubent  divites 

dotatae,   si   istud   ius   pauperibus   ponitur?      (Aul.    489  )M 

The  contrast  between  divites  and  pauperes  suggests  that  the  for- 
mer is  substantival ;  but  it  does  not  at  once  follow  that  dotatae 
is  purely  adjectival.  For  vss.  534-5  of  the  same  play  show  how 
easily  the  participial  adjective  becomes  substantival : 

nam  quae  indotata  est,  ea  in  potestate  est  viri; 
dotatae  mactant  et  malo  et  damno  viros. 

Similarly  Ter.  Phor.  938,  940.  If,  however,  it  is  adjectival  in 
our  passage,  it  adds  to  and  explains  divites  very  much  as  facti 
osum  in 

venit  hoc  mihi,  Megadore,  in  mentem  ted  esse  hominem  divitem 
factiosum,   me   autem   esse   hominem  pauperum   pauperrimum.      (Aul.   226) 

In  both  passages  we  have  the  contrast  between  rich  and  poor, 
and  in  factiosum  as  in  dotatae  the  happy  isolation  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  verses  of  a  more  specific  attribute  of  the  rich  class: 
in  each  case  the  emphasis  is  accentuated  by  the  sense-pause 
which  follows  the  separated  adjective.  From  a  different  point 
of  view  hominem  divitem  \  factiosum  should  be  compared  with 
hominem  strenuom  \  benevolentem  (Ps.  697,  above,  p.  211). 

Most  of  such  amplifying  ideas  are  similarly  brought  into 
prominence  by  their  position  at  the  beginning  of  the  second 
verse;  often  they  are  followed  by  a  decided  sense-pause;  some- 
times this  separation  brings  them  into  the  vicinity  of  contrasted 


81  The  verse  immediatly  following  in  the  Stichus  (450a)  contains  pos- 
ticam  partem,  but  this  verse  is  not  in  A,  and  the  division  of  450a  and 
451  in  B  is  suspicious:  cf.  Leo  ad  loc.  If  vs.  450a  is  genuine,  as  Lindsay 
seems  to  regard  it  in  his  Oxford  text,  a  purely  adjectival  force  gains 
some  support.     Cf .  Pauli  Pestus,  220  M  =  276  de  Ponor. 

3;  In  a  similar  context  Menander   (585  K.)   has  a  similar  separation: 
iirsr/c  )vi>a'iK'  ewiiikfipov  imdvfiel  Xaf3elv 
irTiovrnvaav 


222  University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 

iilr;is.";;     All  of  these   features,  with  attendant  alliteration,  are 

illustrated  in 

ego  te,  Philocrates 
false,  faciam  at  verus  hodie  reperiare  Tyndarus.     (Capt.  609) 

The  separation  of  an  adjective  from  a  vocative  is  similarly  ar- 
ranged,  but   here   in   a   succession  of  epithets    (referred   to  on 

p.  211),  in 

Quid  ais,  homo 
levior  quam  pluma,  pessume  et  nequissume, 
flagitium  hominis,  subdole  ac  minimi  preti?      (Men.  487) 

The  surprise  of  the  opprobrious  epithet  is  made  more  effective  by 

separation  and  prominent  position.     The  element  of  surprise, 

which    false    and    levior,    like    subvolturium    and    volaticorum 

among  the  long  adjectives,  illustrate,  recurs  in  another  example 

of  the  vocative ;  the  parasite  greets  his  patron  as  a  veritable  god 

on  earth: 

o  mi  Iuppiter 

terrestris,  te  coepnlonus  eompellat  tuos.      (Pers.   99) 

Without  the  element  of  surprise  and  without  so  distinct  a  sense- 
pause,  but,  I  think,  with  emphasis  paterni  is  separated  in 

nonne    arbitraris   eum   adulescentem    anuli 
paterni  signum  novisse.     (Trin.  789) 

So  in  Poen.  1080  the  same  adjective  stands  with  emphasis  in  the 
same  position,  though  not  separated. 

Contrast  is  heightened  by  alliteration34  in 

quodque  concubinam  erilem  insimulare  ausus  es 
probri  pudicam  meque  summi  flagiti,   (M.  G.  508) 

and  here  prominent  position  is  given  to  the  crime  rather  than 
the  adjective,  that  the  two  crimes  may  occupy  the  extremes  of 


33  For  contrasted   ideas  brought   into  the   same   verse   by  the   separation 

of  an  adjective  cf.  Caecilius  221  E3: 

egon  vitam  meam 

Atticam  contendam  cum  istae  rustic-ana  (tua),  Syra? 

unless  it  is  an  octonarius,  as  C.  F.  W.  Midler  supposes.  Bergk's  asticam 
brings  out  the  contrast  more  plainly:  cf.  rusticatim  .  .  .  vrbanatim  in  Pom- 
ponius  7  R3  (Leo,  Analecta  Plautina:  de  figuris  sermonis  II  32). 

34  Cf.  probrum,  propinqua  partitudo   (Aul.  75),  probrum  .  .  .  parfitudo 
prope  .  .  .  palam  (Aul.  276). 


Vol.  ij       Prescott.— Thought   and    Verst    in   Plant  us.  223 

the  verse  and  the  two  abused  innocents  be  juxtaposed  in  pudicam 
meque.  Contrast  and  comprehensiveness  are  obtained  in  this 
separation  of  dexteram  : 

age  rusum  ostende  hue  manum 

dexteram. — em. — nunc  laevam  ostende. — quin  equidem  ambas  profero.     (Aul. 
649) 

Somewhat  different  is  the  collocation  in 

nixus  ]aevo  in  femine  habet  laevam  manum, 
dextera  digitis  rationem  eomputat,  ferit  femur 
dexterum.      (M.  G.  203) 

Here  the  contrasted  parts  occupy  different  verses;  dexterum 
echoes  dextera  of  the  preceding  verse,35  and  the  actor's  gestures 
doubtless  contributed  to  the  effect;  the  alliterative  features  are 
plain,  whether  or  not  part  of  the  poet's  intention  in  separating 
the  adjective. 

An  adjective  expressive  of  size  is  naturally  liable  to  separation 
and  prominence;36  in  this  example  maxumi  is  practically  predic- 
ative ;  number  and  size  are  postponed  with  dramatic  effect : 

postquam  in  eunas  conditust 
devolant  angues  iubati  deorsum  in  impluvium  duo 
maxumi:   continuo  extollunt  ambo  capita.      (Amph.  1107) 

Essentially  attributive,  but  in  effective  juxtaposition,  the  same 
adjective  is  postponed  with  more  injury  to  verse-unity  in 

sumne  probus,  sum  lepidus  civis,  qui  Atticam  hodie  civitatem 
maxumam  maiorem  feci  atque  auxi  civi  femina?      (Pers.  474) 

The  postponement  of  the  verb  makes  the  thought  less  complete, 
but  the  alliterative  juxtaposition37  of  the  superlative  and  com- 
parative more  than  compensates  for  the  separation.  When  the 
verb  comes  in  the  first  verse,  the  adjective  escapes  into  the  second 
verse  with  less  violence  to  unity,  and  in  this  example  is  brought 


35  Cf.  usque  .  .  .  \  usque  .  .  .  |  faciebatis  .  .  .  |  fxigiebatis  .  .  .  (As.  210- 
213) ;  iussin  (As.  424-426)  ;  deam  .  .  .  |  deum  .  .  .  (As.  781-782) ;  omnes 
(Aul.  114-115);  itaque  (Cist.  513-515);  peril  (Merc.  124-125);  egomet 
(Merc.  852-854)  ;  ferreas,  ferream,  fcrreas  (Pers.  571-573)  ;  p<  rqvn  (Poen. 
418-420),  pater  .  .  .  |  'pater  .  .  .  (Poen.  1260-1261). 

80  Cf .  Norden,  Aeneis  Buch  VI,  390. 

37  Cf.  Cas.  1006,  Amph.  704,  Capt.  1034,  M.  G.  1218,  Rud.  71,  St.  739. 


224  University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 

into  associations  of  thought  and  sound  that  give  the  second  verse 
a  unity  of  its  own : 

nulla  igitur  dicat :  equidem  dotem  ad  te  adtuli 
maiorem  multo  quam  tibi  erat  pecunia.     (Aul.  498) 

So  with  elaborated  emphasis  on  size : 

verum    nunc    si    qua    mi    obtigerit    hereditas 
magna  atque  luculenta,38   (True.  344) 

A  necessary  specification  is  added  to  the  noun  in 

ut  opinor,  quam  ex  me  ut  unam  faciam  litteram 

lon(gam,   me)um   laqueo   collum   quando   obstrinxero.      (Aul.    77)30 

Alliterative  possibilities  may  have  helped  attract  the  adjective 
into  the  neighborhood  of  laqueo;  the  alliteration  in  litteram  | 
long  am  is  merely  an  unavoidable  accident. 

This  prominent  position,  combined  with  a  sense-pause,  some- 
times introduces  an  elaboration  of  the  idea40  expressed  in  the 
separated  adjective ;  so  in  the  elaboration  of  a  joke : 

si  hercle  illic  illas  bodie  digito  tetigerit 
invitas,    ni    istunc    istis    invitassitis    (Rud.    810) 

or  with  further  explanation  of  the  idea  as  in  the  examples  quoted 
above  (p.  211)  in  Rud.  1158,  and  (p.  209)  421,  372. 

In  two  examples  in  which  the  long  adjective  inhonestus  is  set 
at  the  beginning41  of  the  verse  the  amplifying  idea  occupies  the 
entire  second  verse  with  predicative  effect : 

nunc  hie  occepit  quaestum  hunc  fili  gratia 

inhonestum  et  maxime  alienum  ingenio  suo.     (Capt.  98) 

38  Note  the  balance  between  magna  atque  luculenta  (345)  and  dulce 
atque  amarum  (346). 

3J  According  to  the  reading  of  the  MSS.  Bacch.  279  belongs  here: 

ego  lembum  conspieor 
longum  strigorem  maleficum  exornarier. 

But  strigorem  is  dubious. 

10  Cf.  Norden,  Aeneis  Buch  VI,  391. 

41  The  same  adjective  stands  in  the  same  position  in  Ter.  Eun.  357. 
For  the  occupation  of  the  entire  second  verse  cf.  Trin.   750: 

sed  ut  ego  nunc  adulescenti  thensaurum  indicem 
indomito,  pleno  amoris  ac  lasciviae? 


vol.  l]       Prcscott. — Thought   and   Verse  in  Plautus.  225 

verum  quom  multos  multa  admisse  aceeperim 

inhonesta   propter   amorem  atque   aliena   a   bonis:    (M.   G.   1287)42 

A  few  cases  remain  in  which  the  added  ideas,  set  off  at  or 
near  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse,  are  rather  conspicuously 
linked  by  alliteration  to  neighboring  words  in  the  same  verse; 
some  such  cases  have  been  already  mentioned,  but  in  the  follow- 
ing the  alliteration  is  even  more  conspicuous: 

turn  quae  hie  sunt  scriptae  litterae,  hoc  in  equo  insunt  milites 
armati  atque  animati  probe."     (Bacch.  941) 

quid  istic?  verba  facimus.     huic  homini  opust  quadraginta  minis 
celeriter  calidis,  danistae  quas  resolvat,  et  cito.     (Ep.  141) 

quibus  hie  pretiis  porci  veneunt 
sacres  sinceri?      (Men.  289) 

Diaeresis  or  caesura  contribute  to  the  emphasis  and  independent 
unity  of  the  amplifying  ideas;  in  the  second  example  the  entire 
second  verse  has  a  unity  of  its  own,  of  which  the  alliteration  is 
a  superficial  indication.44  In  the  following  example,  referred 
to  among  the  cases  of  successive  epithets,  the  alliteration  in  both 
verses  brings  into  relief  the  distinct  unity  of  each,  and  the  sepa- 
rated adjective,  being  only  the  last  in  an  accumulation  of  epi- 
thets, escapes  into  the  second  verse  without  violence : 

iam   hercle   ego  istos  fictos   compositos  crispos  eoneinnos   tuos 
unguentatos  usque  ex  cerebro  exvellam.      (True.  287) 

In  M.  (4.  508  we  noted  a  certain  artificiality  in  probri  pudicam 
meque  summi  flagiti  (above,  p.  222).  The  employment  of  the 
ends  of  a  verse  to  set  in  relief  a  pair  of  balanced  ideas  appears  in 

"  erne,  mi  vir.  lanam,  unde  tibi  pallium 
malacum  et  calidum  conficiatur,  tunicaeque  hibernae  bonae, "   (M.  G.  687) 

The  adjectives  here  are  less  evidently  amplifying,  though  con- 
ceivably separable;  the  striking  feature  is  the  position  of  each 


42  Omitted  in  A. 

43  Cf.  Aecius  308  K3: 

ut  nunc,  cum  animatua  iero,  satis  armatua  sum. 

44  For  alliterative  groups  including  calidus  ef.  Cas.   255,  309,    Ep.   i!-">i»; 
and  especially,  in   connection  with   our   passage: 

reperi,   comminiscere,   cedo   calidum    consilium   cito,    (M.    (!.    226) 


226  University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 

pair  of  adjectives  at  the  opposite  extreme  of  the  verse,  the  first 
pair  varied  by  the  connecting  particle  et.  The  two  substantives 
are  divided  between  the  verses;  the  verb  common  to  both  stands 
before  the  diaeresis  of  the  second  verse;  the  alliteration  is  com- 
paratively unimportant.  Cf.  Norden,  Aeneis  Buch  VI,  383  on 
similar  phenomena  in  Vergil. 

The  regularity  with  which  adjectives,  following  their  substan- 
tives and  separated,  stand  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse, 
is  not  appreciably  disturbed  by  a  few  examples  of  different  dis- 
positions of  the  separated  ideas.  So  the  adjective  sacerrumus, 
which  regularly  appears  at  the  end  of  a  verse  in  Plautus  (Rud. 
158,  Most.  983),  is  effectively  placed  in  a  verse  which  constitutes 
a  unity  by  itself  and  with  alliteration  that  hisses  out  the  oppro- 
brious epithet:45 

praesenti  argento  homini,  si  leno  est  homo, 

quantum   hominum  terra  sustinet  sacerrumo.      (Poen.   89) 

Similarly  Plautus  sets  off  the  accomplishments  of  the  parasite's 
sun-clial ;  again  superlatives,  and  to  be  sure  in  one  case  metrically 
convenient  (cf.  Merc.  206)  ;  and  again  in  a  verse  that  is  an  in- 
dependent unit;  both  this  and  the  former  example  are  essen- 
tially predicative: 

nam(unum)  me  puero  venter  eral   solarium, 

multo   omnium  istorum  optimum  et  verissumum.      (Boeotia,  1,  4) 

The  separated  adjective  stands  after  a  diaeresis,  w7ith  reiteration 
of  the  same  idea  at  the  end  of  the  same  verse  and  in  the  next 
verse,  in 

quia  enim  filio 
nos  oportet  opitulari  unico. — at  quamquam  unicust, 
nihilo   magis   ille   unicust   mihi  fllius  quam  ego   illi   pater:     (('as.    202) 

(Cf.  Capt.  150:  tibi  ill'  unicust,  mi  (Ham  unico  magis  aniens.) 
A  somewhat  similar  but  less  explicable  separation  occurs  in 

si  itast,  tesseram 
conferre   si    vis   hospitalem,    eecam    attuli.      (Poen.    1047) 

Here  the  adjective  is  not   demonstrably  amplifying    (cf.   958, 


a  Cf.  Ter.  Hec.  85: 


minime  equidem   me   oblectavi,  quae  cum  milite 
Corinthum  nine  .sum  profecta  inliumanissumo : 


Vol,.  i]       Prescott. — Thought   and   Verse    in   Plautus. 


007 


1052,  where  it  precedes  the  noun),  though  it  may  be  felt  as  an 
afterthought;  the  association  of  thought  in  eccam  attuli  may 
have  drawn  it  from  its  noun ;  but  the  interruption,  by  the  verse- 
end,  of  the  artificial  interlocking  of  tesseram  conferre  si  vis  hos- 
pitalem—a,  thought-unit  embraced  between. noun  and  adjective 

is  striking.     The  examples  above    (Poen.   615,  Pers.  105,  p. 

220)  are  similar,  but  the  adjectives  in  those  cases  are  more 
clearly  amplifying  or  predicative. 

We  have  reviewed  the  cases  in  which  the  separated  adjectives 
follow  their  substantives  :40  such  adjectives  have  very  regularly 
stood  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse  and  usually  with  a 
caesura  or  sense-pause  immediately  following;  with  few  excep- 
tions they  have  been  added  ideas,  the  separation  of  which  was 
accomplished  without  violence  to  verse-unity;  many  of  them, 
indeed,  were  almost  if  not  quite  predicative;  most  of  them 
gained  by  separation,  through  acquiring  emphasis,  or  producing 
antithesis  or  sound-effects.     There  is  perhaps  only  one  doubtful 

case : 

quin  potius  per  gratiam 

bouam  abeat  abs  te.     (M.  G.  1125) 

It  may  hardly  be  said  that  bonam  adds  to  the  thought,  for  per 
gratiam  is  sufficient  in  itself  (M.  G.  979,  1200,  and  St.  71  accord- 
ing to  Leo,  Bemerkungen  fiber  pi.  Wortstellungen  etc.  118  and 
Lindsay,  Class.  Rev.  8  [1891]  159).  Bona  gratia  is,  of  course, 
Plautine  (Bacch.  1022,  Rud.  516).  The  same  idea,  expressed  in 
the  same  play,  vs.  979, 

vin  tu  illam  actutum  amovere,  a  te  ut  abeat  per  gratiam .' 

makes  us  suspect  that  in  1125  the  poet  availed  himself  of  the 
pleonastic  adjective  and  of  separation  for  the  sake  of  the  reitera- 


40  Most.  501  should  be  added: 

hospes  me  hie  uecavit,  isque  mi' 
defodit   insepultum   clam    (ibidem)    in   hisce   aedibus, 
scelestus,  auri  causa,  nunc  tu  hinc  emigra: 
BCelestae  hae  sunt  aedes,   impiast   habitatio. 

The   afterthought    scelestus    is    echoed    in    scelestae.      Insepultum    needs    no 
comment:  cf.  defodit  in   terrain  dimidiatos  in  Cato's  .Speeches,  XXXVII  3. 


228  University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 

tion  of  a-  and  b-sounds,  just  as  a  consideration  for  a-  and  t- 
sounds  affected  the  structure  of  vs.  979.47 

It  is  obvious  that  the  cases  of  separation  in  which  the  adjec- 
tive appears  in  the  first  verse,  and  the  substantive  in  the  second, 
necessarily  involve  the  incompleteness  of  the  first  verse.  In 
most  of  the  cases  enumerated  in  the  previous  paragraphs  the 
adjectives  ranged  from  purely  predicative  to  loosely  amplify- 
ing; the  thought  was  in  a  measure  complete  in  the  first  verse, 
especially  if  the  verb  came  in  that  verse;  the  separation  was 
apparent  rather  than  real.  The  examples  about  to  be  discussed 
may  seem,  per  se,  to  impair  the  validity  of  Leo's  theory;  it  is 
important,  therefore,  to  note  that  they  are  few  in  number.  Nor 
h  it  impossible  that  in  spite  of  the  separation  the  noun  or  adjec- 
tive may  be  so  related  to  the  context  as  to  reinforce  to  some 
extent  the  unity  of  the  verses. 

It  may  be  well  to  cpiote  at  once  a  striking  example  of  the  reali- 
zation of  this  possibility.  In  one  passage  already  quoted  we 
have  seen  some  evidence  of  a  rather  studied  disposition  of  adjec- 
tives and  substantives  (M.  G.  687,  above,  p.  225).  The  case 
before  us  shows  evidence  of  even  more  care  in  the  collocation  of 

words : 

aequo  mendicus  atque  ille  opulentissimus 

censetur  censu  ad  Acheruntem  mortuos.     (Trin.  -493) 

It  is  perhaps  annoying  to  enumerate  the  features  of  this  couplet, 
which  are  sufficiently  plain  to  any  sympathetic  reader  or  hearer. 
In  the  first  place,  the  thought  is  incomplete  until  the  caesura  of 
the  second  verse  is  reached.  Yet  the  separation  of  aequo  from 
censu  is  attended  by  an  effective  juxtaposition  of  ideas  in  the 
first  verse,  which  gives  to  that  verse  a  partial  unity.48     The  sep- 

47  Appuhn,  1.  c.  67-68,  distinguishes  sharply  between  dissyllabic  and 
trisyllabic  adjectives,  and  maintains  that  the  former  may  not  be  separated. 
There  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  any  evidence  to  warrant  such  a  dis- 
tinction, and  it  lacks  inherent  probability.  His  contention  that  bonam  is 
unemphatic  and  absorbed  in  the  first  foot,  may  ease  the  separation,  but 
does  not  explain  it. 

"Cf.  <'ist.  532: 

postremo  quando  aequa   lege  pauperi  cum  divite 
non  licet, 


Vol.  l]       Prcscott. — Thought   and   Verse  in  Plautus.  229 

aration  of  censu  results  in  a  figura  etymologica  and  consequent 
unity  of  sound-  and  sense-effect.  And  mortuos  at  the  end  car- 
ries us  back  to  the  nouns  of  the  first  verse  in  such  a  way  as  to 
establish  the  unity  of  the  couplet  by  the  close  interlocking  of 
ideas.49 

A  phase  of  a-n-6  kolvov  is  illustrated  in  the  following  case : 

decet  innocentem  qui  sit  atque  innoxium 

servom  superbum  esse,  apud  erum  potissumum.      (Ps.  460) 

The  thought  is  again  incomplete  until  we  reach  the  caesura  of 
the  second  verse;  yet  there  is  a  fitness  in  the  transference  of 
servom  to  the  side  of  superbum,  with  which  it  belongs  as  much 
as  with  the  adjectives  of  the  preceding  verse,  and  to  which  allit- 
erative opportunities  (cf.  As.  470)  attract  it.  The  significance 
of  this  example  is  clearer  on  comparing  it  with  the  recurrence 
of  the  same  thought  without  separation  of  the  adjective  in 

decet  innocentem  servom  atque  innoxium 

confidentem  esse,  suom  apud  erum  potissumum.      (Capt.  665) 

In  both  passages  the  verse  preceding  the  couplet  contains  the 
adverb  confidenter,  and  this  adverb  prompts  the  commonplace 
in  each  case :  in  the  Capt.  the  poet  repeats  the  idea  of  the  adverb 
iii  the  corresponding  adjective ;  in  the  Ps.  he  chooses  a  synonym. 
It  is  not,  of  course,  possible  to  discover  whether  in  the  latter 
case  his  choice  was  determined  by  a  desire  to  avoid  the  recur- 
rence of  the  same  stem  or  whether  the  alliterative  unit  servom 
superbum  came  to  his  mind  independently  of  any  consciousness 
of  monotony  in  the  repetition  confidenter — confidt  it  I  cm.  But 
in  any  case  the  comparative  artificiality  of  the  couplet  from  the 
Ps.  is  evident:  the  development  in  freedom  of  technique  is 
clear.""     Without  discounting  the  value  of  other  factors  may  we 


49  Nor  is  the  emphasis  on  aequo  to  be  overlooked;  cf.  the  Greek  equiva- 
lent in  Menander  538  K: 

koivov  rbv  '  Auh/r  iaxov  ol  iravreg  vxiroi. 

The  tragic  seriousness  of  the  speaker  in  the  Trinummus  perhaps  explains 
the  artificial  style,  which  adds  dignity  to  the  expression  (Leo,  Plaut. 
Forsch.  122  and  note  5). 

50  The  hiatus  in   ('apt.   665   is  perhaps  a    part    of   tlie   crudity   of  composi- 
tion. 


230  University  of  California  Publications.   [r'LAss  Phil. 

not  say  that  when  once  the  alliterative  unit  occurred  to  him  the 
unity  of  sound  proved  superior  to  the  affinity  of  the  attributive 
for  its  noun,  and  that  this  conservation  of  unity  of  sound  was 
made  easier  or  perhaps  suggested  by  the  fact  that  there  was  a 
strong  unity  of  thought  as  well  which  linked  servom  to  si<j»r- 
bumf  By  this  question  we  do  not  imply  any  conscious  intent 
on  the  poet's  part;  we  mean  simply  to  suggest  that  the  two 
examples  seem  to  us  to  prove  that  the  poet's  technique  on  occa- 
sion had  got  beyond  the  point  of  preserving  the  more  natural 
and  obvious  unity  of  thought,  and  shows  here  as  elsewhere  a 
sensitiveness  to  unity  of  sound  and  to  the  more  artificial  phases 
of  unity  of  thought. 

In  this  connection,  properly,  we  should  note  the  isolation  of 
an  adjective  in  the  first  verse  by  the  transposition  of  its  noun 
t  i  a  relative  clause  that  occupies  the  second  verse  :51 

nisi  qui  meliorem  adferet 
quae  mi  atque  amicis  placeat  eondicio  magis,   (Capt.  179) 

It  will  be  granted  that  this  is  analogous  to  our  previous  exam- 
ple: again  the  noun,  to  which  two  attributive  ideas  belong,  is 
expressed  with  the  second. 

Somewhat  similar,  too,  are  these  cases  in  which  a  noun  com- 
mon to  two  adjectives  is  separated  from  the  first  adjective,  and 
stands  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse  before  a  sense-pause ; 
the  second  adjective  stands  in  the  same  verse  with  the  noun: 

multifl  et  multigeneribus  opus  est  tibi 

militibus:    primumdum    opus    est    Pistorensibus;     (Capt.    159) 

quam  ego  postquam  aspexi,  uon  ita  amo  ut  sani  solent 
homines,  sed  eodem  pacto  ut  insani  solent.     (Merc.  262) 

The  sound-effects,  especially  in  the  tetrasyllable  rhyme  in  the 
second  case,  are  obvious. 


H  The  figure  of  speech  involved,  without  separation  by  the  verse,  is 
..oily  paralleled  in  Plautus  and  other  poets:  for  examples  cf.  Bach,  de  at- 
tractione  .  .  .  inversa  ap.  scriptores  latinos  16;  Yahlen,  Hermes  17  (1882) 
598-599;  Leo,  Analecta  Plautina:  de  figuris  sermonis  I  20.  If,  however, 
separation  by  the  verse  occurs,  the  adjective  is  usually  a  demonstrative: 
cf.  Rud.  1065,  Poen.  419  (quoted  below,  p.  251). 


Vol.  l]       Prescott. — Thought  and  Terse   in   Plautus.  231 

Equally  studied  is  the  juxtaposition  of  different  case-forms  of 
the  same  word;  the  separation  that  results  may  indicate  that 
the  attraction  of  words  of  the  same  stem  for  each  other52  is 
stronger  than  the  attraction  of  the  attributive  to  its  noun  or 
than  any  sensitiveness  to  verse-unity: 

nam  ex  uno  puteo  similior  nunquam  potis 

aqua  aquaP  sumi  quam  haec  est  atque  ista  hospita.      (M.  G.  551) 

Again  the  thought  reaches  a  partial  completion  at  the  caesura ; 
the  four  objects  in  two  pairs  are  grouped  in  the  second  verse; 
and  the  sound-effect  in  aqua  aquai  was  doubtless  not  ungrateful 
to  the  audience.  This  example,  too,  gains  in  significance  from 
the  occurrence  of  the  same  thought  in  another  form : 

nam  ego  hominem  hominis  similiorem  nunquam  villi  alterum. 
neque  aqua  aquae  nee  lacte  est  lactis,  crede  mi,  usqnain  similius, 
quam  hie  tui  est,  tuque  huius  autem;    (Men.  1088) 

Here  it  is  worth  noting  that  the  second  example,  which  is  with- 
out separation,  shows  all  the  simplicity  and  explicit  fulness  of 
an  early  and  undeveloped  style;  the  identity  of  sentence  and 
verse  is  almost  as  exact  as  in  the  early  Saturnian  verse.  The 
first  example,  on  the  contrary,  shows  a  freer  technique:  the 
thought  is  more  condensed,  less  explicit ;  verse-unity  is  less  scru- 
pulously preserved.  We  have  a  suggestion  before  us  of  a  dif- 
ference, if  not  of  a  development,  in  verse-technique  in  the  course 
of  the  poet's  activity. 

Artificiality  in  the  disposition  of  words  is  clearly  discernible 

in 

non  meministi  me  auream  ad  te  afferre  natali  die 
lunulam  atque  anellum  aureolum  in   digit  urn?      (Ep.   639) 

The  chiastic  arrangement  of  the  pairs  of  substantives  and  adjec- 
tives, the  consistent  diminutives  in  the  second  verse  in  contrast 
with  auream  in  the  first  verse,  and  the  artificial  interlocking  of 
the  words  are  the  noticeable  features.  So  far  as  any  unity  is 
discoverable,  it  consists  only  in  such  unity  as  appeals  to  the  ear 


62For  other  examples  cf.  Kiessliug,  Rh.  Mus.  23  (1869)  411ft'.,  Kel 
lerhof,  1.  c.  58-60. 

03  The  traces  of  aeque  in  A  and  B  (both,  however,  corrected  ti>  iuju,i,  \ 
need  nut  detain  us:   cf.  Men.  1089  quoted  above. 


232  University  of  California  Publications.    [Class  Phil. 

from  the  different  sound-effects  of  each  verse — a-sounds  predom- 
inating in  the  first  verse,  1-,  m-,  u-,  and  n-sounds  in  the  second ; 
certainly  there  does  seem  to  be  something  conscious  in  the  change 
from  attrcam  of  the  first  verse  to  aureolum  of  the  second;  we 
may  properly  maintain  that  the  unity  of  form  and  of  sound- 
effects  in  the  second  verse  could  have  arisen  only  from  a  con- 
sciousness that  the  second  verse  was  a  distinct  entity.  At  the 
same  time  the  fact  that  the  consciousness  expresses  itself  only 
in  a  superficial  or  external  preservation  of  verse-unity,  and  that 
unity  of  thought  is  interrupted,  suggests  that  "art-poetry"  in 
Plautus's  hands  was  on  occasion  further  advanced  than  the 
chronological  proximity  of  Saturnian  verse  would  lead  us  to 
suspect. 

In  contrast  with  merely  superficial  observance  of  unity  stand 
a  few  cases  of  separation  in  which  the  thought  serves  to  reassert 

the  unity  of  the  verse: 

hosticum  hoc  mihi 
domicilium  est,  Athenis  domus  est  Atticis;  ego  istam  domum 
neque  moror  neqiie  vos  qui  homines  sitis  novi  neque  scio.      (M.  G.  450) 

Alliteration,  to  be  sure,  may  have  attracted  hosticum  to  hoc,  but 
the  dominant  factors  are  emphasis  and  contrast.  Hosticum  is 
first  in  the  sentence  because  emphasis  brings  it  to  that  position. 
Domicilium  is  first  in  the  verse54  because  emphasis  again  de- 
mands for  it  a  prominent  position :  it  must  stand  in  the  same 
verse  with  domus  to  bring  out  the  contrast  between  "house" 
and  "home."  The  effect  may  be  suggested  in  English  by 
"Stop!  a  stranger's  |  house  you  point  me  to;  my  home's  in 
Athens;  for  your  home  |  I  care  not,  nor  know  I  who  you  gentle- 
men may  be." 

Another  passage  in  which  at  first  sight  unity  seems  to  be  dis- 
regarded, when  studied  in  the  light  of  the  context,  shows  con- 
siderable consciousness  of  the  intimate  association  of  verse-unit 
and  thought-unit : 

habui  uumerum  sedulo:   hoc  est  sextum  a  porta  proxunmm 

angiportum,  in  id  angiportum  me  devorti  iusserat; 

quotumas  aedis  dixerit,  id  ego  admodum  incerto  scio.      (Ps.   960) 

14  But  est  domicilium  in  CD.     Xote  also  host  in  m    {ost — )  BCD. 


Vol.  l]       Prescott. — Thought   and   Verse   in  Plautus.  233 

Here,  again,  it  may  be  said  that  porta  has  attracted  the  allitera- 
tive proxumum,  but  the  verse-division  represents  a  correspond- 
ing division  of  thought.  The  beginning  of  the  first  verse  leads 
up  to  the  number  and  precise  location ;  angiportum,  separated 
from  its  two  adjectives,  stands  out  at  the  beginning  of  the  sec- 
ond verse,  again  with  emphasis,  and  is  repeated55  with  the  re- 
sumptive pronoun — all  of  which  heightens  the  contrast  with 
aedis  of  the  third  verse.  The  effect  is:  "I've  got  the  number 
right:  the  sixth,  (in  going  from  the  gate),  |  alley-way,  that's 
the  alley-way  I  was  told  to  take ;  |  but  the  number  of  the  house, 
that  I've  clean  forgotten." 

Perhaps  the  existence  of  any  unity  in  the  following  example 
will  be  less  readily  granted : 

coepi  observare  eequi  maiorem  filius 

mihi  honorem  haberet  quam  eius  habuisset  pater.      (Aul.   16) 

There  seem  to  be  two  prominent  factors  in  the  separation :  the 
comparative  degree  is  attracted  to  the  ablative  of  degree  of  dif- 
ference;56 alliteration  brings  together  honorem  and  haberet." 
Yet  is  it  too  fanciful  to  say  that  in  spite  of  the  separation  the 
position  of  filius  and  pater  at  the  ends  of  their  verses58  suggests 
a  unity  of  thought  quite  apart  from  and  above  the  syntactical 
and  alliterative  unity  of  each  verse?  The  two  verses  are  com- 
parable to  the  two  pans  of  the  scale,  the  son  balancing  the  father, 
and  maiorem  alongside  of  filius  marking  the  turn  of  the  balance 
which  the  expectant  Lar  anticipates.59 

55  Examples .  of  such  repetition  may  be  found  in  Bach,  de  usu  pron. 
demonstrat.  =  Studemund-Stud.   II   353-354. 

66  See  the  examples  in  Fraesdorff ,  de  comparativi  gradus  usu  Plautino 
31  ff.  Other  factors,  external  or  internal,  may  have  precedence  over  the 
natural  juxtaposition  of  the  ablative  of  degree  and  the  comparative,  but 
the  generalization  above  is  not  thereby  endangered. 

67  Cf.  honos  homini  Trin.  697,  meque  honorem  Mi  habere  True.  591,  mihi 
honor es  suae  domi  habuit  maxumos  Pers.  512,  habuit,  me  habere  honorem 
As.  81. 

58  To  be  sure,  they  owe  their  position  in  some  measure  to  metrical  con- 
venience: cf.  vss.  12,  21,  30  of  the  same  prologue. 

59  It  is  not  likely  that  the  following  example  involves  separation  (but 
note  vinum  Chium  in  Cure.  78)  : 

ubi  tu  Leucadio,  Lesbio,  Thasio,  Chio, 

vetustate    vino    edentulo    aetatem    inriges.      (Poen.    699) 


234  University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 

Nor  can  I  be  sure  that  my  understanding  of  the  next  ease  will 
prove  convincing.  The  adjective  mutuos  is  occasionally  sepa- 
rated in  expressions  of  the  ideas  of  borrowing  and  lending;  in 
two  of  the  cases  the  adjective  follows  the  noun,  in  one  the  adjec- 
tive precedes.  For  purposes  of  comparison  I  include  them  all 
here,  although  the  former  belong  in  the  previous  section : 

tecumque  oravi  ut  nummos  sescentos  mihi 
dares  utendos   mutuos.      (Pers.   117) 

sed  quinque  inventis  opus  est  argenti  minis 
nmtuis,  quas  hodie  reddam:    (Ps.  732) 

sed  potes  nunc  mutuam 
drachumam  dare  unam  mihi,  quam  eras  reddam  tibi?     (Ps.  85) 

The  frecpient  collocation  of  this  adjective  with  dare  and  rogare 
in  commercial  phrases  may  have  given  it  a  substantival  force 
corresponding  to  the  English  "loan":  so,  for  example,  exorare 
mutuom  in  Pers.  43  (with  argentum  far  distant  in  39)  suggests 
that  the  adjectival  force  is  approximately  substantival,60  and 
eventually  this  substantival  usage  becomes  established;  even  in 
Plautus  we  have  tide  si  pudoris  egeas,  sumas  mutuom  (Amph. 
819).  If  this  is  granted,  the  separation  becomes  innocuous,  even 
if  the  adjective  precedes;  the  alliteration  in  the  last  example 
perhaps  adds  to  the  unity  of  the  verse,  but  no  such  additional 
feature  is  necessary  if  mutuam  is  in  effect  appositional. 

The  cases  hitherto  discussed  have  shown,  in  varying  degrees, 
consciousness  of  verse-unity  and  conservation  of  it  to  some  ex- 
tent in  spite  of  the  separation  of  the  attributives.  The  exam- 
ples we  have  now  to  consider  do  not  so  plainly  point  to  a  sensi- 
tiveness to  the  identity  of  verse-  and  sense-unit.  There  are 
often  extenuating  circumstances,  but  in  most  cases  we  must 
admit  that  the  separation  involves  a  distinct  interruption  of  a 
thought-unit  with  less  effectual  employment  of  the  features  that 
in  other  examples  reinforced  the  unity  of  the  verse.     Prominent 


60  Cf.  Ps.  294: 

nullus  est  tibi  quem  roges 

mutuom  argentum? — quin  nomen  quoque  iam  interiit  "  mutuom." 

As.   248  and   Trin.   1051   also   show   mutuos   in   a   sense  approximately   sub- 
stantival.    The  various  forms  of  facere  mutuom  are  hardly  parallel. 


Vol.  l]       Prescott— Thought   and   Versi    in   Plautus.  235 

among  these  is  a  group  of  superlatives  of  cretic  measurement 
which  may  owe  their  separation  in  part  to  metrical  convenience ; 
occasionally  there  result  sound-effects  that  may  have  conduced 
to  separation,  but  in  general  the  violation  of  unity  is  unmistak- 
able, and  the  palliating  or  counteracting  features  are  superficial. 
It  is,  however,  always  to  be  remembered  that  the  cases  of  sepa- 
ration are  extremely  few  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  occur- 
rences of  a  given  adjective  at  the  end  of  a  verse.  The  most 
important  member  of  this  group  is  maxumus,  which  we  have 
already  found  separated,  but  following  its  noun  and  standing 
at  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse  with  emphasis.  This  adjec- 
tive appears  86  times  in  Plautus:  39  times  at  the  end  of  the 
verse,  38  times  in  the  interior,  nine  times  at  the  beginning.  It 
is  not  likely  that,  under  normal  conditions,  the  position  at  the 
verse-end  is  prompted  by  a  desire  to  emphasize;01  generally  un- 
emphatic  words  occupy  this  position.  A  collection  of  all  the 
examples  of  the  phrase  opere  maxumo,  with  and  without  sepa- 
ration, will  illustrate  the  feature  of  metrical  convenience:02 

nam  rex  Seleucus  me  opere  oravit  maxumo  (M.  G.  75) 

nunc  te   hoc   orare  iussit   opere  maxumo    (Most.   752) 

pater  Calidori  opere  eclixit  maxumo    (Ps.   897) 

rogare  iussit  ted  ut  opere  maxumo   (St.  248) 

iussit  maxumo 
opere  orare,  ut  patrem  aliquo  absterreres  modo,   (Most.  420) 

non  hercle  vero  taceo.  nam  tu  maxumo 
me  opsecravisti  opere,  Casinam  ut  poscerem  uxorem  mihi  (Cas.  992) 

Cf.  Terence, 

Thais  maxumo 
te    orabat    opere,    ut    eras    redires.      (Eun.    532) 


61  Such  a  position  for  emphasis  is  occupied  at  least  once  by  the  very 
words  with  which  we  are  now  concerned: 

ego  miserrumis  periclis  sum  per  maria  maxuma 
vectus,  capitali  periclo  per  praedones  plurumos 
me   servavi,    (Trin.    1087) 

62  The  significance  of  the  cases  of  separation  is  somewhat  more  appar- 
ent when  we  note  that  magno  opere,  maiorc  opere,  nimio  opere,  tanto  "/<<  re 
are  never  separated  in  Plautus  by  the  verse-end. 


236  University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 

It  is  evident  that  opere  is  attracted  to  orare  and  opsecrare,  but 
so  far  as  the  thought  is  concerned,  there  is  nothing  to  diminish 
the  violence  in  the  division  of  maxumo  opere  in  Most.  420,  or 
the  division  of  the  larger  word-groups  in  Cas.  992  and  Eun. 
532.  And  in  the  first  of  the  two  following  cases  of  maxumus 
there  are  no  sound-effects  to  relieve  the  separation ;  in  the  sec- 
ond, separation  brings  together  m-  and  a-sounds ;  these  are,  how- 
ever, from  lyrical  passages: 

ubi  quisque  institerat,  concidit  crepitu.  ibi  nescio  quia  maxuma 
voce  exclamat:    (Amph.  1063) 

quam  malum?  quid  machiner?  quid  commiuiscar?  maxumas 
nugas  iiieptus  incipisso.63  haereo.      (Capt.  531) 

Cf.  Terence, 

Geta,  hominem  maxumi 
preti84  te  esse  hodie  iudicavi  animo  meo ;    (Ad.   891) 

Consideration  for  sound  and  the  artificial  arrangement  of  words 
may  have  played  some  part  in  the  structure  of  these  verses: 

Alexandrum   magnum    atque    Agathoclem    aiunt    maxumas 

duo  res  gessisse:   quid  mihi  fiet  tertio, 

qui  solus   facio   facinora   inmortalia  ?      (Most.   775) 

The  a-sounds  are  prominent  in  the  first  verse;  magnum  and 
maxumas  are  perhaps  not  unintentionally  put  in  the  same  verse; 
duo,  interlocked  between  maxumas  and  res,  is  in  contrast  with 
tertio  at  the  other  extreme  of  the  same  verse.65 

Another  superlative  optumus  occurs  at  the  end  of  the  verse 
in  one  third  of  the  total  number  of  its  occurrences ;  in  only  one 
case  does  its  position  result  in  separation: 


Ineptias  incipissc  is  the  reading  of  the  MSS. 

01  Contrast  with  this  the  stereotyped  position  at  the  end  of  the  verse, 
without  separation,  of  minimi  preti,  parvi  preti,  magni  preti,  quantiiis 
preti  in  Plautus  (cf.  Kassow,  de  Plauti  substantivis  s.  v.  pretium  GS.=  JHB. 
Supplbd.  12  (1881)  710). 

85 Cf.  altera  .  .  .  altera,  Aul.  195;  superi  .  .  .  inferi,  Aul.  368;  miserius 
.  .  .  dignius,  Bacch.  41;  malefactor  em  .  .  .  beneficum,  Bacch.  395;  meam  .  .  . 
tuam,  Capt.  632.  It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection  a  couplet  in 
baccbiac  verse: 

sed  vero  duae,  sat  scio,  maxumo  uni 

populo  cuilubet  plus  satis  dare  potis  sunt,    (Poen.   226). 


Vol.  l]       Prescott — Thought   and   Versi    in  Plautus.  237 

sed,  ere,  optuma 
vos  video   bpportunitate  ambo  advenire.      (Ep.    202) 

With  this  should  be  compared 

optuma  opportunitate  ambo  advenistia.     (Merc.  964) 

Next  in  significance  to  the  rarity  of  the  separation  is  the  fact, 
attested  by  the  verse  from  the  Merc,  that  the  initial  sounds  op — 
v — v — op  are  the  external  manifestation  of  unity  which  is  cer- 
tainly interrupted  by  the  end  of  the  verse.  Such  a  case  is  far 
from  disturbing  Leo's  theory.  Such  interlocked  complexes  of 
thought  and  sound,  which  are  characteristic  of  the  language, 
must  burst  the  bonds  that  confine  units  of  thought  within  the 
verse:  that  they  do  it  so  rarely  is  significant. 

A  third  superlative  that,  like  optumus,  stands  at  the  end  of 
the  verse  in  one  third  of  the  total  number  of  its  occurrences  is 
plurumus.  The  singular  and  the  plural  of  this  word  are  perhaps 
on  a  different  footing :  the  plural  is  conceivably  analogous  to  the 
separation  of  omnes;66  so,  for  example,  in  this  case  of  plurumi 
in  the  interior  of  a  verse,  the  separation  seems  less  violent  than 
in  cases  of  the  singular  :GT 

plurumi  ad  ilium  modum 
periere    pueri    liberi    Carthagine.       (Poen.    988) 

Whether  this  is  true  in  the  case  of  the  following  feminine  plural 
is  not  at  once  patent  to  an  English  auditor: 

O  Gripe,  Gripe,  in  aetate  hominum  plurumae 

mint  transennae,  ubi  decipiuntur  dolis.      (End.   1235) 

In  any  case,  the  singular  seems  at  first  to  be  rather  rudely  sepa- 
rated in 

miles  Lyconi  in  Epidauro  hospiti 

suo  Tlierapontigonus  Platagidorus  plurumam 

salutem  dicit.      (Cure.  429) 

Here  the  conventional  phrases  of  epistolary  address  run  along 
naturally  and  result  in  two  separations,  with  the  first  of  which 

86  Cf.  below,  j,..  258. 

07  Jn   Eph,  393  plummet  (plurwmum  MSS.)  is  predicative. 


238  University  of  California  Publications.    [Class  Phil. 

we  are  not  now  concerned,  but' verse-unity  is  suggested  in  the 
alliterative  colligation  of  Platagidorus  plurumam;  the  effect  is  as 
if  plurumam  were  an  adverb  and  salutem  (licit  no  more  than 
sah't  ii    iubet,  as  the  following  example  suggests: 

eruni  atque  servom  plurumum  Philto  iubet 
salvere,  Lesbonicum  et   Stasimum.      (Trin.   435) 

in  which,  again,  we  have  similar  alliteration — plurumum  Philto. 
pronounced  J'ilfo.     So,  too.  our  explanation  is  confirmed  by 

multam  me  tilii 
salutem    iussit    Therapontigonus    dicere    (Cure.    420) 

in  which,  as  in  the  other  cases,  mid  tarn  me  are  attracted  to  each 
other,  while  salutem  iussit  like  salutem  elicit  and  solvere  stands 
at  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse.68 

The  adjective  parvolus  occurs  thirteen  times:  nine  times  at 
the  end  of  a  verse,  three  times  with  separation.  Of  these  three, 
one  belongs  in  our  examples  of  adjectives  following  their  nouns, 
and  is  a  mere  afterthought : 

nam  mihi  item  gnatae  duae 
cum  nutrice  una  sunt   surruptae  parvolae.      (Poen.   1104) 

The  other  two,  both  from  the  same  play  and  of  the  same  situa- 
tion, are  cases  of  violent  and  absolute  separation  :6a 

nam   ego   illanc   olim  quae  hinc   flens  abiit   parvolam 
puellam  proiectam  ex  angiportu  sustuli.     (Cist.  12o) 

nam  mihi  ab  hippodromo  memini  adferri  parvolam 

puellam  eamque  me  mihi  supponere.     (Cist.  552) 

A  comparison  with  three  cases  in  Terence  justifies  us  in  attrib- 
uting the  separation  in  large  measure  to  metrical  convenience: 

ibi  turn  matri  parvolam 
puellam  dono  quidam  mercator  dedit    (Eun.  108) 


68 On  the  other  hand,  without  separation,  but  again  in  alliterative  col- 
ligation in 

Veneri  dicito 

multam     meis    verbis    salutem.       (Poen.    406) 

60  The  alliteration,  interrupted  by  the  verse-end,  in  parvolam  |  puellam 
has  no  significance,  for  it  is  accidental:  the  range  of  expressions  tor  the 
idea   is  too  limited  to  admit  our  regarding  it  as  genuine  alliteration. 


Vol.  lj       Prescott— Thought   and   Verst    in   Plautus.  239 

nisi  si  ilia  forte  quae  olim  periit  parvola 

soror,  hanc  se  intendit  esse,  ut  est  audacia.      (Eun.   524) 

ah,  stultitiast  istaec,  non  pudor.  tarn  ol>  parvolam 
rem  paene  e  patria!      (Ad.  274) 

In  the  second  example  sense  as  well  as  sound  may  connect  p<  Hit 
parvola — "died  in  infancy,"  and  in  the  last  there  are  sound- 
effects  that  reassert  the  unity  of  the  verses.70 

So  much  for  this  group  of  cretic  adjectives  ;71  the  following 
participial  adjectives  may  be  more  easily  separable  because  of 


70  Something  might  be  said  for  a  substantival  force  in  parvola,  though 
it  could  hardly  apply  to  the  last  example  from  Terence:  such  a  force  is 
possible  in  Ter.  Eun.  155: 

parvola 
hinc   est   abrepta ; 

the  substantival  force  is  evident  in  Terence's  a  parvolo  (And.  35,  Ad. 
48)=  a  puero.  The  nearest  approach  to  it  in  Plautus  is  in  Poen.  896, 
1346,  but  it  is  not  certain  in  either  place;  nor  is  Ps.  783  a  clear  case.  Cf. 
Lorenz,  Pseudolus,  Einleiturig  p.  59. 

71  Before  leaving  these  examples  in  which  metrical  convenience  seems 
to  be  a  factor  in  the  separation,  I  may  call  attention  to  a  closely  re- 
lated phenomenon  which,  it  seems  to  me,  is  not  always  recognized.  Is 
not  the  stereotyped  position  of  certain  words  in  the  verse  often  nothing 
more  than  the  working  of  the  poet's  mind  along  the  path  of  well-worn 
"  grooves,"  as  a  psychologist  might  express  it"?  For  example,  in  the 
cases  above  in  which  salutem  iussit  or  dicii,  or  solvere  hibet,  appear,  the 
position  of  salutem  and  salver e  (rather  regularly  at  the  beginning  of  the 
verse,  though  not  uniformly)  can  hardly  be  attributed  to  metrical  conve- 
nience alone :  it  is  to  some  extent  a  matter  of  habit.  A  better  example 
is  furnished  by  these  examples  from  Euripides 's  Iphigeneia  in  Tauris: 

TuTifUj-EOV  701  !-EGTOV  £K  VCIOV   ?Mi3eIV 

ayaKfia  naaaq  TrpoGtykpovTE  fiifxavaq,      (Ill) 

<\'<n Soc  //j-f/zi/'f  5nvpof  dionETtg  A.ahir 
aya7.fi'  'AOtjvav  r'  eyicaOidpvaai  xdovi.     (977) 

n'vv  ro'ic  ^Evmaiv  o'ixETati  BEftviiv  Oeclc 

ayaA.fi'  ixovaa-  <)6'Ata  (Y>/v  mdapfiara.      (1315) 

ro  r'  o'vpavov  nicy/ia,  rf/r  Siur  xuprjq 
aya?/ia.  vaug  d'kic  /tfntjc  i^Bky^aro 
po/fTn;-     (1384) 

Those  of  us  who  are  reluctant  to  admit  metrical  convenience  as  a  factor 
may  find  some  comfort  in  emphasizing  the  part  that  mental  habit  plays 
in  the  regular  appearance  of  certain  words  in  the  same  part  of  the  yerse. 
'Aya'Afia  in  the  verses  above  seems  to  me  to  owe  its  position  to  this  rather 
than  anything  else. 


240  University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 

the  peculiar  nature  of  the  adjective,  and  the  balanced  isolation 
of  pah  /•; 

salve,  insperate  nobis 

pater,  to  complecti  nos  .sine. — cupite  atque  exspectate 

loiter,   salve.      (Poen.   12.")!)) 

The  greetings  are  from  two  sisters  with  artificial  variation  of 
the  conventional  terms:  the  imperatives  and  vocatives  are  ar- 
ranged  in  chiastic  order;  pater  stands  at  the  beginning  of  each 
vnsc,7-  leaving  the  adjectives  at  the  end  in  each  ease.  The 
collocation  is  the  same  as  in 

o   salve,  insperate   multis  amiis  post   quern   conspicor 
f rater,  (Men.  1132) 

according  to  MS.  B,  but  the  other  members  of  the  Palatine  fam- 
ily (and  A  apparently  agrees)  introduce  a  change  of  speakers 
before  frater.  Even  if  we  agree  with  the  editors  in  following 
A  and  the  majority  of  the  Palatine  family,  the  isolation  of  the 
participial  vocative,  and  the  relative  clause  that  modifies  it,  may 
point  to  a  certain  degree  of  separability  in  the  participial  adjec- 
tives insperate,  cupite,  and  exspectate  in  our  passage.73 

There  remains  a  small  group  of  cases  in  which  verse-unity 
seems  to  be  lost  sight  of,  and  which  are  alike  in  that  the  adjec- 
tives are  of  four  syllables  metrically  convenient  at  the  end  of 

the  verse : 

pol  istic  me  baud  eentesumam 
partem  laudat  quam  ipse  meritust  ut  laudetur  laudibus.     (Capt.  421) 

baud  eentesumam 
partem  'lixi  atque,  otium  rei  si  sit,  possum  expromere.     (M.  G.  763) 

si  quisquam  banc  libera li 
causa  maim  assereret,  (Cure.  490) 

ne  epistula  quidem  ulla  sit  in  aedibus 
nee  cerata  adeo  tabula;  et  si  qua  inutilis 
pietura  sit,  earn  vendat:   (As.  763) 

Centesumus  occurs  only  in  these  two  places  in  Plautus;  libcrali 
causa  occurs  in  the  interior  of  the  verse  in  Poen.  906,  964,  1102, 


'■-  <  !f.  above,  p.  223,  n.  35. 

"Ferger,  de  voeativi  usu  Plautino  Terentianoque  32,  defends  the  read- 
ing of  B  in  Men.  1132  on  the  ground  that  insjii rate  is  not  found  in  Plau- 
tus without  an   accompanying    noun. 


Vol.  l]       Prescotl. — Thought   and   Versi    in   Plautus.  241 

and  so  liberali  manu  in  Cure.  668,  700:  inutilis  occurs  again  in 
Ps.  794  and  at  the  end  of  the  verse.  But  the  separation  in  these 
cases  is  not  entirely  a  matter  of  length  and  metrical  conveni- 
ence :  the  collocation  of  the  other  words  in  the  sentence  is  so 
fixed  by  almost  inviolable  laws  that  it  is  not  surprising  that 
the  adjective  should  escape  into  the  second  verse.  For  to  any- 
body familiar  with  Plautus  and  with  Wackernagel's  study 
of  the  position  in  the  sentence  of  enclitic  words  it  will  be 
clear  that  the  collocations  pol  istic  me,  si  quisquam  hanc,  and 
<  i  si  qua  are  to  a  considerable  extent  fixed  in  the  usage  of  the 
language ;  the  increased  difficulty  of  conserving  verse-unity  is 
obvious.74 

The  very  fact  that  in  some  15,000  verses  so  few  cases  of  sepa- 
ration occur — and  this  in  spite  of  the  fondness  of  the  Koman 
for  interlocked  complexes  which  would  seem  to  make  the  preser- 
vation of  verse-unity  difficult — clearly  attests  the  sanity  of  Leo's 
contention.  The  further  fact  that  in  so  many  of  the  few  cases 
of  separation  the  unity  of  the  verse  reasserts  itself  through  asso- 
ciation of  thought  or  sound  confirms  in  large  measure  his  re- 
cpiirement  of  special  justification  when  separation  does  occur. 
The  existence  of  a  few  cases  in  which  unity  is  not  apparent  need 
not  affect  the  validity  of  the  principle ;  the  essential  unity  of  the 
verse  so  far  as  attributive  adjectives  are  concerned  is  clear  at 
once  from  comparison  with  a  tragedy  of  Euripides  or  of  Seneca 
— clearer  than  any  statistics  could  make  it. 

IV. 

The  large  proportion  of  possessive  adjectives  among  the  cases 
of  separation  deserves  an  explanation.  They  represent  one- 
fourth  of  the  total;  indeed  if  we  eliminate  cases  of  merely  ap- 
parent separation  the  proportion  would  be  even  larger. 

No  small  part  of  the  explanation  is  found,  of  course,  in  the 
relative  frequency  of  the  possessive  adjectives  in  the  conversa- 


74  In  As.  763  ff.  there  is  perhaps  some  effect  in  the  position  of  the 
nouns  tpisl ilia,  ccrala  tahitln,  pictura  at  or  near  the  beginning  of  suc- 
cessive verses.     The   resumptive   earn   may  also   reinforce  the   unity   of   the 

last     YCl'St'. 


242  University  of  California  Publications.  [Class  Phil. 

tional  Latin  of  the  plays.  That  among  3000 75  eases  of  posses- 
sive adjectives  only  about  60  should  be  separated  from  their 
substantives  by  the  verse-end  may  seem  in  itself  some  slight 
tribute  to  wrsc-unity  rather  than  a  contravention  of  it.  Yet 
the  obvious  violence  to  the  unity  of  thought,  at  least  from  an 
English  standpoint,  in  dividing  "thy  son"'  between  two  verses 
makes  even  a  small  percentage  seem  inexplicably  large.  We 
must  not.  however,  allow  our  English  standpoint  to  influence 
us.  The  separation  of  "thy  son"  by  the  verse-end  in  English 
i-  not  altogether  analogous  to  the  separation  of  filius  from  tuos. 
For  in  the  Latin  sentence  the  phrase  corresponding  to  "thy 
son"  is  much  less  of  an  independent  unit  of  thought  than  in 
the  English  sentence:  in  the  Latin  sentence,  largely  because  the 
possessives  mens,  tuos,  suos  are  generally  unemphatic  and  often 
without  accent  in  the  phrase-  or  sentence-unit,  the  division  by 
the  verse-end  does  not  separate  "thy"  from  "son,"  but  rather 
divides  a  larger  unit  of  thought.  It  is  clear,  for  example,  that 
tims  emit  aedis  filius  (Most.  670)  constitutes  a  unit  of 
thought:  and  so,  too,  does  aedis  filius  tuos  emit  (Most. 
637,  cf.  997).  The  separation  in  this  latter  case,  if  any  is  felt, 
is  rather  that  of  aedis  filius  from  tuos  emit  than  merely  of  filius 
from  tuos.  Furthermore,  since  the  possessive  adjectives  meus, 
tuos,  suos  are  generally  unemphatic  in  our  examples,  it  is  pos- 
sible and  likely  that  in  this  example  tuos  was  absorbed  in  the 
rhythmical  unit  tuos  emit  without  much  consciousness  of  any 
violence  in  separating  tuos  from  filius  by  the  verse-end;  the  fre- 
quency and  ease  with  which  words  intervene  between  these  pos- 
sessives and  their  substantives  (quite  apart  from  separation  by 
the  verse-end)  may  support  this  contention.  Even  if  the  pos- 
sessive had  some  slight  stress  upon  it,  as  in  the  beginning  of 
trochaic  verses  and  rarely  in  an  iambic  verse  (filiam  \  sudm 
despondit,  Cist.  600),  certainly  such  stress  was  subordinate: 
suam,  despite  some  quantitative  prominence,  must  have  been 
merged   in  the  surrounding  words.76     Of  course  it  may  he  ob- 


"•'-  Xilsson,  1.  c.    1-. 

"Some  such  idea  is  expressed  by  Appuhn.   1.  c.   63,  but   in  a   way  that 
fails  to  account  for  trochaic  verses  and  Cist.  600.     I   hope  it  is  clear  that 


Vol.  l]       Prescott. — Thought   and    Verse   in   Plautus.  243 

jected  that  the  thought  would  lead  us  to  merge  it  in  the  preced- 
ing, rather  than  in  the  following  word,  in  the  example  quoted, 
and  that  the  possessive  is  enclitic,"  not  proclitic.  For  our  pres- 
ent purpose  it  is  enough  that  the  possessive  is  absorbed  in  a 
larger  unit,  and  that  the  separation  by  the  verse-end  is  by  no 
means  the  same  as  that  involved  in  the  division  between  verses 
of  the  English  possessive  and  its  substantive.78 

In  the  second  place  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  possessives  are 
subject  to  at  least  one  influence  from  which  ordinary  attribu- 
tives are  free:  Kampf,79  and  others  before  him,  observed  the 
attraction  of  pronominal  words  to  one  another.  Such  attrac- 
tion appears  in  a  relatively  small  number  of  our  examples:80 

earn  meae  |  uxori   (Men.  480), 

illam  quae  meam  |  gnatam   (Cist.  547), 

tu  mini  tua  |  oratione  (As.  112), 

ad  illam  quae  tuom  |   .  .  .  filium  (Baceh.  406), 

fores  conservas  |  meas  a  te  (As.  386), 

the  paragraph  above  is  not  intended  to  offer  any  complete  explanation 
of  the  separation,  but  only  to  suggest  that  the  separation,  such  as  it  is, 
is  probably  by  no  means  so  harsh  as  it  appears  to  us.  The  point  that  I 
wish  to  make' is  that  the  unemphatie  possessive  has  very  little  independent 
force  and  is  not  merely  "  swallowed  up  "  (Appuhn)  metrically,  but  ab- 
sorbed in  larger  thought-units  even  of  ordinary  speech. 

"Lindsay,  Latin  Language  167;  but  cf.  E.  Wallstedt,  Fran  Filologiska 
Foreningen:  Sprakliga  Uppsatser  III  (Lund  1906)  189  ff;  also  Kadford, 
Trans.  Amer.  Phil.  Assoc.  36  (1905)  190  ff.  Neither  of  these  last  two 
articles  was  accessible  to  me  in  time  to  use  them  for  the  discussion  above. 

"The  fact  that  the  genitive  case  is  used  in  appositional  relation  to  the 
possessives  (e.g.  mea  unius  opera)  might  lead  to  the  suggestion  that  the 
separation  is  not  more  serious  than  that  of  a  possessive  genitive.  This 
would  be  a  helpful  suggestion  if  the  possessive  genitive  in  Plautus  were 
regularly  or  even  frequently  separated  from  its  noun  by  the  verse;  cases 
do  occur  (e.  g.  Bacch.  901,  Bud.  1079,  Cist.  544),  but  rarely;  and  the 
possessive  genitive  with  pater,  uxor,  filius,  mater,  which  are  the  nouns  most 
frequently  appearing  in  our  cases  of  the  separated  possessive  adjective, 
is  in  Plautus  almost  inseparable  from  its  noun   even   by   intervening  words. 

"Kampf,  1.  c.  16  ff. 

80  A  few  cases,  though  too  few  to  he  significant,  of  a  verse-end  intrr- 
v.Miing  between  pronominal  words  thus  combined  are  worth  noting:  tua  \  me 
('as.  279-280,  meam  |  me  Cist.  98-99,  me  \  meam  Ep.  480-481,  mea  meae 
M.  G.  738-739,  sc  \  suamque  Trin.  109-110,  tibi  \  tua  Ps.  112   L13. 


L'44  University  of  California  Publications.    [Class  Phil. 

filio  I  moo  te  esse  amicum  et  ilium  intellexi  tilii   (('apt.  140), 
sine  dispendio  |  tun  tu.-uu  libertam  (Poen.  163), 
servos...  |  suos  mihi  (Most.  1087). 

If  alliteration  appears  in  such  eases,  it  is,  of  course,  incidental 
and  results  from  the  attraction:  it  is  not  a  primary  factor. 

Wackernagel  I  Endog.  Forsch.  I.  406  ff.)  does  not  include  mens, 
tuos,  suos  among  his  examples  of  enclitic  words  that  drift  to 
the  beginning  of  the  sentence.  There  are  cases  of  separation 
that  mighl  have  been  affected  by  his  law,  but  they  are  too  few 
to  suggest  the  direct  influence  of  his  law;  these  few  show  the 
enclitic  possessive*  immediately  following  the  introductory 
word;  they  seem  more  significant  when  other  words  intervene 
between  the  possessive  and  the  noun:  e.  g.  True.  855,  Aul.  733, 
St.  416.  Since  Wackernagel 's  law  affects  particularly  certain 
monosyllabic  and  dissyllabic  pronouns,  it  follows  that  in  com- 
bination with  tlie  law  of  pronominal  attraction  there  results  in 
many  cases  the  necessity  of  placing  the  possessive  in  the  third 
or  fourth  place:  take,  for  example,  these  two  cases,  one  of  sepa- 
ration, one  without  separation  i 

eonteris 
tu  tua  me  oratione,  nmlier,  quisquia  es.      (Cist.  (309) 

protect  <  i  nemo  est  quern  iam  dehinc  metuam  mihi 

ne  quid  nocere  possit,  cum  tu  mihi  tua 

oratione  oiiiiiem  animum  ostemlisti  tuom.     (As.  Ill) 

To  say  nothing  of  other  features,  the  rule  of  collocation  that 
makes  I  u  second  in  the  sentence,  in  combination  with  the  attrac- 
tion that  joins  tu  I iia  me  and  tu  mihi  tua.  undoubtedly  regulates 
to  a  considerable  degree  the  disposition  of  the  words:  and  it  is 
clear  that  the  existence  of  such  laws  of  collocation  must  appear 
seriously  to  interfere  with  the  poet's  consideration  of  verse- 
unity,  at  least  in  many  cases. 

Such  laws  affect  the  spoken  language;  if  Plautus  is  more  ob- 
servant of  them  than  of  verse-unity,  it  is  no  more  than  we  should 
expect  of  a  dramatic  poet  who  is  reproducing  the  conversational 
Latin  of  his  daw  The  same  general  truth  applies  to  ordinary 
attributives,  but  they  are  not  as  a  class  subject  to  these  particu- 


vol.  ij       Prescott. — Thought   and    Verst    in   Plauhis.  245 

lar  regulations.  In  addition  to  the  observance  of  laws  control- 
ling the  arrangement  of  words  in  speech  the  poet  is  governed  by 
the  conditions  of  his  verse.  It  is  easy  to  overestimate  the  force 
of  metrical  convenience.  It  is  seldom  more  than  one  of  many 
factors.  But  it  may  hardly  be  denied  that  the  iambic  or  pyr- 
rhic  possessives  found  a  comfortable  habitat  at  the  end81  and  at 
the  beginning  of  certain  iambic  and  trochaic  verses.  Indeed, 
quite  apart  from  the  metrical  convenience  of  the  possessives  that 
do  not  involve  separation,  the  cases  of  separated  possessives  of 
iambic  or  pyrrhic  measurement  lead  to  two  conclusions : 

1)  in  all  cases  of  separation  in  which  mens,  tuos,  or  suos  fol- 
lows a  substantive,  whether  with  or  without  intervening  words, 
the  possessive  stands  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse;82 

2)  in  all  cases  of  separation  in  which  mens,  tuos,  or  suos  pre- 
cedes a  substantive,  whether  with  or  without  intervening  words, 
the  possessive  stands  at  the  end  of  the  first  verse.83 

The  exceptions  to  these  principles84  only  test  their  validity. 
It  is  of  course  evident  that  in  the  cases  covered  by  the  first  rule 
there  is  no  reason  why  the  possessive  should  not  stand  at  the  end 
of  the  second  verse ;  such  a  position  is  unusual,  probably  because 
the  separation  by  intervening  words  is  thereby  abnormally 
great;  an  example  from  Terence  is 

qui  turn  illam  amabant,  forte  ita  ut  fit,  filium 

perduxere   illuc,   secum   ut   una   esset,   meum.      (And.   80) 

Similarly  under  the  second  rule  there  is  no  reason  why  the  pos- 
sessive should  not  stand  at  the  beginning  of  the  first  verse;  but 
here,  again,  such  position  is  unusual  probably  because  of  the 
extent  of  the  intervening  words;  an  isolated  example  is 


81  For  statistics  cf.  Nilsson,  1.  c.  37. 

82Amph.  134,  135,  As.  387,  434,  Aul.  289,  Bacch.  880,  Capt.  141,  873, 
Cist.  586,  601,  Cure.  347,  430,  Ep.  391,  401,  482,  583,  M.  G.  543,  Mfost.  638, 
998,  1088,  Poen.  164,  192,  1375,  Ps.  483,  650,  850,  Bud.  743,  Trin.  1101, 
1144,  True.  293. 

"As.  16,  112,  785,  Aul.  733,  Bacch.  406,  777,  Cist.  184,  547,  772,  Ep. 
279,  Men.  420,  480,  518,  740,  M.  (i.  563,  <i::."">.  791>,  Rud.  1392,  St.  416.  Trin. 
1147,  True.  355. 

84  The  hiatus,  therefore,  after  the  first  word  of  Ps.  650  is  not  to  be 
cured  by  changing  suam  hue  to  hue  suam  (Bothe),  and  Trin.  141  becomes 
suspicious. 


246  University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 

meamne  hie    Mnesilochus,  Nicobuli   filius, 
per  vim  ut  retineat  mulieremf     (Bacch.   842) 

Tn  both  cases  the  rare  position  is  attended  by  other  features:  in 
the  first,, the  postponement  of  meum  perhaps  suggests  the  pathos 
of  the  situation:  in  the  second,  emphasis,  alliteration,  and  collo- 
cation with  hie  are  contributory  factors.  Finally,  such  an  ex- 
ception to  these  rules  as  appears  in  the  following  example  is  due 
to  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  formula  and  the  greater  conveni- 
ence of  obs(  cro  at  the  end : 

adsum,  Callicles:  per  tua  ohsecro 
genua,  ut  tu  istuc  insipienter  factum  sapienter  feras     (True.  826) 

Cf.  Cure.  630,  where  per  tua  genua  te  <>hs<  <■>■<>  concludes  the 
verse,  and  Poen.  [1387],  where,  again  at  the  end  of  the  verse, 
we  find  per  ego  tua  te  genua  obsecro.s:> 

We  have  thus  noted  several  features  that  make  the  compara- 
tively large  number  of  separated  possessives  more  easily  under- 
stood. As  in  the  case  of  ordinary  attributives,  there  are  occa- 
sionally special  conditions  which  emphasize  the  unity  of  the 
verse  in  spite  of  the  separation.  The  accidental  alliteration 
arising  from  pronominal  attraction  wre  have  already  noticed , 
there  are  a  few  cases  of  genuine  alliteration : 

nl>i  erit  empta,  ut  aliquo  ex  urbe  amoveas;   nisi  quid  est  tua 
secus  sententia.     (Ep.  279) 

nam  hominem  servom  suos 
domitos  habere  oportet  oculos  et  manus     (M.  G.  563) 

oeulos  volo 
meoa  delectare  munditiis  meretriciis.     (Poen.  191) 

There  are  a  few  cases,  allied  to  those  of  pronominal  attraction, 
in  which  pronominal  words  are  not  immediately  juxtaposed  but 
are  grouped  together  in  the  same  verse: 

all,   salus 
mea,   servavisti    me.      (Bacch.   879) 

vel  cyn.  ijui  duduni  fili  causa  coeperam 
cyu  nii'il  I'xcruciare  aninii,  quasi  quid  films 


98 Cf.   Langen,    Beitrage    zur   Kiitik   u.   Erklarung   d.    PL    335;    Kampf, 
I.  c.  21. 


Vol.  l]       Prescott — Thought  and  Verse   in   Plautus.  '-'47 

meus  deliquisset  me  erga  (Ep.  389)" 

O   fili:i 

mea,  quom  banc  video,  rnearum  me  absens  miseriarum  commones;    (Rud.  742) 
Tn  the  following  example  )iuar  belongs  to  both  nouns: 

inscitiae 

meae   et    stultitiae    ignoscas.      (M.    G.    542) 

The  possessive  adjectives  of  the  plural  pronouns  of  the  first 
and  second  persons  occur  naturally  with  much  less  frequency 
than  mens,  tuos,  suos,  and  cases  of  separation  are  proportion- 
ately fewer.  They  are  subject  to  fewer  special  regulations  and 
conditions :  they  are  not  enclitics ;  metrical  convenience  does  not 
affect  their  position  so  significantly ;  they  are  to  be  sure  subject 
to  the  principle  of  pronominal  attraction  :87 

saluto  te,  vieine  Apollo,  qui  aedibus 

propinquos  nostris  aceolis,  venerorque  te,    (Baccb.   172) 

tonstricem  Suram 
novisti  nostram?      (True.  405) 

qua  re  filiam 
credidisti  nostram?     (Ep.  597) 

meritissumo  eius  quae  volet  faciemus,  qui  bosce  amores 
nostros  dispulsos  compulit.     (As.  737) 

nam  meus  formidat  animus,  nostrum  tarn  din 
ibi  desidere  neque  redire  filium.      (Baccb.  237) 

In  these  cases  there  is  little  to  suggest  the  entity  of  individual 
verses.  The  possessive  and  its  noun  in  every  example  but  one 
bracket  other  words,  and  the  word-group  thus  formed  shows  no 
respect  for  verse-unity.  Such  word-groups  appear  in  very  sim- 
ple form  in  Altenberg's  examples  from  early  prose:  in  Plautus's 
verse — we  may  not  here  enquire  into  the  causes — they  are  often 

86  Note  also  ego,  ego  med,  metis  at  or  near  the  beginning  of  successive 
verses. 

"This  does  not   happen   to   appear   in    our  examples,  but  note   Terence 

Haut.  711: 

ut  quom  narrel   senex 
voster  nostro  esse  istam  amicam  gnati,  non  credat  tameu. 


248  University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 

elaborate,  as  the  Las1  example  above  illustrates/8  The  signifi- 
e.int  fad  is  that  in  spite  of  the  employment  of  such  interlocked 
phrases  the  poet  so  seldom  allows  them  to  escape  into  the  second 
verse.  It  is  true  that  when  the  ordinary  attributive  escapes, 
verse-unity  seems  more  often  to  reassert  itself  than  when  a  pos- 
sessive is  separated,  but  such  difference  as  there  is,  is  accounted 
for  by  the  relative  frequency  of  the  possessives,  the  unemphatic 
nature  of  most  of  them,  and  their  metrical  character,  which 
draws  some  of  them  to  the  extremities  of  the  verse.  Inasmuch 
as  nostcr,  voster  are  subject  only  to  the  second  of  these  influ- 
ences, lack  of  emphasis  may  properly  be  regarded  as  the  most 
important  factor  in  the  separation. sr' 

ss  In  the  cases  of  mens,  tuos,  suos,  visually  the  possessive  is  separated 
from  its  noun  only  by  a  verb  (Aul.  733-734,  Ps.  849-850).  There  are  a 
few  cases  of  more  elaborate  interlocking: 

ad  ilium  quae  tuom 
perdidit,  pessum  dedit  tibi  filium  unice  unicum.     (Bacch.  406) 

Special  effects  are  usually  produced   by  Buch  arrangements;   an   interesting 

case  is 

sicut  tuom  vis  unicum  gnatum  tuae 

superesse  vitae  sospitem  et  superstitem,   (As.  16) 

Here  the  couplet  is  securely  linked  together  by  the  connection  between 
the  noun  of  the  first  verse  and  the  adjectives  of  the  second;  but  as  the 
connection  is  predicative,  the  unity  of  the  second  verse,  reinforced  by  the 
sound-  and  sense-effect,  is  paramount;  tuae  is  separated  from  vitae,  and 
the  separation  also  divides  the  group  tuae  superesse  vitae,  but  if  our  con- 
clusions above  are  correct,  the  weak  force  of  tuae  made  the  separation 
inoffensive  to  the  Roman.     Another  interesting  case  is 

quid   ais?   ecquam   scis    filium   tibicinam 
meura  amare  .'     (Ps.  482) 

The  eriss  cross  ecquam  .  .  .  filium  tibicinam  |  meum  brings  together  the  con- 
trasted objects  and  suggests  the  father's  indignation,  while  wrum  is  too 
weak  to  interrupt  seriously  the  unity  id'  the  verses  except  so  far  as  it  is 
already  interrupted. 

9  The  evidence  does  not  suffice  to  include  Greek  influence  as  an  addi- 
tional factor.  The  ways  of  expressing  the  possessive  idea  in  Greek  are 
more  varied,  and  the  conditions  inherent  in  the  words  are  different  from 
those  of  their  Latin  equivalents.  The  fragments  of  the  New  Comedy  offer 
almost  no  parallels  to  the  separation  in  Plautus.  In  Menander's  (307  K.) 
ju  aavrbv  inm\  hv  to   Kp&yfiara  j  eldyg  ra  aav~ov)  the  article  with  the  |m>s 


Vol.  i]       Prescott. — Thought   and    Verse  in  Plautus.  249 

V. 

These  special  conditions  also  affect  many  other  pronominal 
adjectives,  so  that  it  is  not  surprising  that,  for  example,  the 
demonstrative  pronouns  in  their  adjectival  usage  are  second,  in 
frequency  of  separation,  to  the  possessive  adjectives.  Again, 
however,  the  cases  of  separation,  viewed  with  reference  to  the 
total  number  of  occurrences  of  such  adjectives,  are  extremely 
few.  The  fact  that  these  words  are  pronominal  as  well  as  ad- 
jectival may  in  many  cases  have  mitigated  the  separation;  and 
the  effect  of  Wackernagel's  law  and  of  the  law  of  pronominal 
attraction,  working  either  separately  or  in  common,  is  very  pro- 
nounced in  many  of  our  examples.  The  studies  of  Langen, 
Bach,  Kampf,  Kellerhof,  taken  in  connection  with  Wacker- 
nagel's different  and  broader  point  of  view,  explain  the  position 
not  only  of  the  demonstratives,  but  of  the  determinative,  and 
of  the  indefinite  quis  and  its  derivatives.  If  these  words  find 
their  natural  habitat  immediately  after  the  introductory  word 
of  the  sentence,  and  if  the  closeness  of  the  adjectival  relation  is 
something  much  less  binding  than  the  operation  of  Wacker- 
nagel's law — as  is  quite  evident — it  is  remarkable  that  cases  of 
separation  are  so  infrequent. 

The  examples  that  follow  will  show  the  pronominal  word  in 
close  connection  with  the  introductory  word  of  the  sentence ;  so 
nunc  is  immediately  followed  by  hoc: 

nunc  hoe  deferam 
argentum  ad  hanc,  quam  mage  amo  quam  matrem  meam.      (True.  661) 


sessive  genitive  may  suggest  an  amplifying  idea.  I  have  not  found  any 
cases  of  efioc,  aoq  thus  separated.  In  Euripides,  however,  parallels  occur, 
but  they  are  less  frequent  than  in  Plautus;  e.g.  yr//ia^  rvpawov  nai  Kaaiyv^rovg 
renvois  |  f/in'ir  Qvthvuv;  (Med.  877,  possibly  with  emphasis  on  kfiolq),  ripf?  Ffif/v 
KOfiii^ofiai  |  Zaf-iuv  a6r.fyr/v  (Iph.  T.  1362),  ou^t  ryv  ifii)v  \  (povia  vouifav  xelPa 
(Iph.  T.  o85),  i-uaav  ftc  <"/''  ffwi  fki>ir  ayn'/ftan.  j  yalav  (Iph.  T.  1480).  So,  too, 
o6v  .  .  .  |  TrpdouTrav  (Ion  925),  narpoQ  \  roi'fiov  (Ion  725,  Med.  746),  <ppiva(  \ 
rat  caq  (Ion  1271),  rkuva  .  .  .  |  ra/S  (Med.  792),  rolai  aolg  tvavriov  \  MyuioiP 
(Med.  1132).  On  the  whole,  inherent  features  of  the  Latin  words  are  more 
likely  to  have  been  the  dominant  influences,  although  the  agreement  points 
to  an  inherited  separability. 


250  University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 

nomen  Trinummo  fecit,      nunc  hoc  vos90  rogat 

ut  licout  possidere  hanc  nomen  fabulam.      (Trin.  20)" 

In  close  association  with  qui  or  with  si: 

nam  servom  misi  qui  ilium*1  sectari  solet 

nit'um  gnattun:   is  ipse  hanc  destinavit  fidicinam.      (Ep.  486) 

hi  qui  ilium  dudum  coneiliaverunt  mihi 
peregrinum   Spartacum,    (Poen.   769) 

nimis  ecastor  facinus  minim  est,  qui  illi  conlibitum  siet 

meo  viro  sic  me  insimulare  falso  facinus  tarn  malum.     (Amph.  858) 

qui  ad  ilium  deferat 
meum  erum,  qui  Athenis  fuerat,  qui  hanc  amaverat,  (M.  G.  131) 

ut  si  illic  concriminatus  sit   advorsum   nnlitein 

mens  conservos,  earn  vidisse  hie  cum  alieno  oscularier,   (M.  G.  242) 

nam  si  ille  argentum  prius 
hospes  hue  affert,  continuo  nos  ambo  exclusi  sumus.      (As.  360) 

edepol  ne  illic  pulchram  praedam  agat,  si  quis  illam  invenerit 
aulam  onustam  auri;    (Aul.  610)"3 

di  tibi  propitii  sunt,  nam  hercle  si  istain  semel  amiseris 

libertatem,  hand  facile  in  eundem  rusum  restitues  locum.     (M.  G.  701) 

The  regularity  with  which  the  separated  noun  in  these  and  many 
other  cases  stands  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse,  with  many 
words  intervening  between  it  and  the  pronominal  adjective — a 
mystery  followed  by  its  solution — conveys  the  effect  of  a  per- 
sonal pronoun  and  an  appositive — "him  .  .  .  my  son,"  etc. 
Such  interpretation  may  be  purely  subjective,''4  but  in  any  case 


w  But  A  reads  vos  hoc. 

01  On  this  verse  cf.  Leo,  Bemerkungen  iiber  plautinische  Wortstellung  u. 
Wortgruppen  430. 
92  ill  ion  qui  P. 

a3  Features  reinforcing  the  unity  of  the  verse  are  apparent  in  the  pre- 
vious example  (hospes  hue),  and  here  particularly  where  aulam  onustam 
auri  are  undoubtedly  linked  together  by  a  unity  of  sound-effect:  cf.  Aul. 
763,  617,  709,  809,  821. 

81  Cf.  Appuhn,  1.  c.  59.  In  a  case  like  the  following,  the  noun  with  its 
nlative  clause  in  the  sivnnd  verse  seems  to  intensify  the  substantival  ef- 
fect of  the  demonstrative  in  the  first  verse: 

"  quam    facile    et    quam    fortunate    evenit    illi,    obsecro, 
mulieri  quam  liberare  volt  amator."     (Ep.  243) 
Occasionally  this  effect   is  brought  out  explicitly: 

em  istic  homo  te  articulatim  concidit,  senex, 

tuns  servos.      (  Ep.  488) 


Vol.  l]       Prescott. — Thought   and   Verse   in   Plautus.  251 

the  rather  constant  attraction  of  these  pronominal  words  to  the 
second  place  in  the  sentence,  without  regard  to  any  association 
with  the  noun,  was  certainly  the  usage  of  the  spoken  language ; 
it  is,  therefore,  unlikely  that  there  was  any  violence  in  the  sepa- 
ration by  the  verse  comparable  to  the  division  in  English  of 
"that  .  .  .  son  of  mine."  Many  pronominal  adjectives  seem  to 
have  an  independent  force,  a  closer  affinity  with  other  words 
than  with  their  substantives :  in  any  consideration  of  verse-unity 
they  are  almost  non-existent. 

In  isolated  cases  the  separated  demonstrative  appears  in  com- 
pany with  nam  and  quid;  the  indefinite  quis  and  its  derivatives 
are  similarly  connected  with  the  introductory  particle  rather 

than  with  the  noun : 

nam  is  illius  filiam 
couicit   in  navem  miles  clam  matrem  suam,    (M.  G.   Ill) 

quid  hie"5  non  poterat  de  suo 
senex  obsonari  filiai  nuptiis?      (Aid.   294) 

sed  speculator  ue  quis  aut  hinc  aut  ab  laeva  aut  dextera 
nostro  consilio  venator  adsit  cum  auritis  plagis.      (M.  G.  607) 

nam  cogitato,  si  quis  hoc  gnato  tuo 

tuos  servos  faxit,   qualem   haberes  gratiam?      (Capt.   711) 

nescio  quid  istuc  negoti  dicam,  nisi  si  quispiam96  est 
Amphitruo  alius,   (Amph.  825) 

ibo  in  Piraeum,  visam  ecquae  advenerit 

in  portum  ex  Epheso  navis  mercatoria.     (Baccb.  235) 

ecquem 
recalvom  ad  Silanum  senem,  statutum,  ventriosum,  (End.  316) 

Some  examples  have  already  illustrated  the  juxtaposition  of 
pronominal  words;  in  the  following  case  (a  lyrical  passage) 
particles  and  pronouns  are  grouped  together  in  a  way  that  read- 
ers of  Plautus  will  admit  to  be  almost  inevitable;  if  there  is  any 
violence  in  the  separation  of  istam— whieh  I  doubt— it  is  easily 

98  Usually  punctuated— 4 uidf  hie  etc.,  but  unnecessarily,  I  think;  in  any 
case  the  stress  is  on  quid,  and  hie  is  not  the  first  word  of  the  sentence-unit, 
as  the  metre  shows. 

M  There  is,  however,  nothing  regular  in  the  collocation  si  quispiam: 
see  the  examples  in  I'rehn,  Quaestiones  Plant  inae  de  pronominibus  indelinitis 


252  University  of  California  Publications.    [Class  Phil. 

forgiven  for  the  sake  of  scelestam,  scelus,  linguam  and  the  di- 
vision only  brings  into  relief  that  phrase: 

quid  t'st  ?  quo  modo?  iani  quidem  hercle  ego  tibi  istam 
scelestam,  scelus,  linguam  abscidam.      (Amph.  556) 

There  are  other  examples  of  the  demonstrative  which  have 
none  of  the  attendant  features  illustrated  above,  hut  which  for 
other  reasons  are  hardly  to  be  considered  as  disturbing  the  unity 
of  the  verse.  Among  these  is  a  small  group  of  cases  in  which 
the  noun  is  in  the  first  verse,  and  the  demonstrative  in  the  sec- 
ond verse  is  defined  in  a  relative  clause;  thus  the  second  verse 
simply  amplifies  the  meaning  of  the  noun  in  the  first  verse: 

'  immo  apud  trapezitam  situm  est 
ilium   quern   dixi  Lyconem,'    (Cure.   345) 

continuo  arbitretur  uxor  tuo  gnato  atque  ut  fidicinam 

i  I  l;iiu  qua  in  is  volt  liberare,  quae  ilium  corrumpit  tibi, 

ulciscare  atque  ita  curetur,  usque  ad  mortem  ut  serviat.     (Ep.  267) 

oboluit  marsuppium 

huic  istuc  quod  habes.      (Men.  38-1) 

So,  too.  with  idem: 

duxit  uxorem  hie  sibi 
eandem  quam  olim  virginem  hie  compresserat,   (Cist.  177) 

There  is,  of  course,  no  more  separation  in  these  cases  than  in07 

sed  optume  eccum  ipse  advenit 
hospes  ille,  qui  has  tabellas  attulit.      (Pers.  543) 

According  to  the  earlier  punctuation  with  a  comma  after  singu- 
la rias,  the  following  verses  would  not  concern  us: 

eis  indito  catenas  singularias 

istas,    maiores    quibus    sunt    iuncti    demito.       (Capt.    112) 

But  Bach  ( Studemund-Stud.  II  322)  offers  valid  reasons  for 
referring  istas  to  the  previous  verse;  such  a  separation  is  diffi- 
cult to  parallel,  and  Bach's  examples  are  wide  of  the  mark. 
There  is,  to  be  sure,  a  contrast  suggested  by  the  juxtaposition 


"'  Or  in 

quid  ais.'  tu  nunc  si  forte  eumpse  Charmidem  conspexeris 

ilium   quem    tibi   istas   dedisse   commemoras   epistulas,    (Trin.    950) 


Vol.  l]       Prescott. — Thought  and   Verse   in   Plautus. 


253 


of  istas  and  maiores,  which  may  account  for  the  separation,  but 
it  is  certainly  very  vaguely  suggested;  the  demonstrative,  if  it 
follows  the  noun  and  is  in  the  second  verse,  is  usually  attended 
by  features  that  more  evidently  justify  separation: 

qnis  istuc  quaeso?  an  ille  quasi  ego?— is  ipse  quasi  tu.   (tum)senex 
ille  quasi  ego  "  si  vis,"  inquit  "  quattuor  sane  dato  "   (St.  552)98 

ei  rei  dies 
haec  praestituta  est,  proxuma  Dionysia? 
eras  ea  quidem  sunt.      (Ps.  58) 

tu  abduc  hosce  intro  et  una  nutricem  simul 
iube  hanc  abire  bine  ad  te.     (Poen.  1147) 

qua  pro  re  argentum  promisit  hie  tibi? — si  vidulum 
hunc  redegissem  in  potestatem  eius,  iuratust  dare 
mihi  talentum  magnum  argenti.      (Rud.   1378) 

Such  analogies  as  there  are  to  istas  according  to  Bach's  punctu- 
ation must  be  found  in  these  examples :  the  contrast  in  ille  .  .  . 
ego,  haec  .  .  .  eras,™  and  the  resumptive  force  of  hanc  and  its 
proximity  to  hinc— all  these  features  reinforce  the  unity  of  the 
verses;  it  may  be  doubted  whether  in  the  last  example  hunc  .  .  . 
eius  is  a  feature  that  has  any  bearing  upon  the  separation  of 
hunc:  it  is  an  unusual  example  (cf.  Trin.  1123-4  according  to 
Lindsay's  Oxford  text),  and  the  nearest  parallel  to  Bach's  istas 
that  I  have  found. 

A  few  examples  do  not  admit  of  grouping  under  characteris- 
tics common  to  any  large  number  of  cases:100 

postremo,  si  dictis  nequis  perduci-ut  vera  haec  credas 
mea  dicta,  ex  factis  nosce  rem.      (Most.  198) 

haec  sunt  atque  aliae  multae  in  magnis  dotibus 
incommoditates  sumptusque  intolerabiles.      (Aid.   532) 

an  te  ibi  vis  inter  istas  vorsarier 
prosedas,  pistorum  arnicas,   (Poen.  265) 

"The  whole  context  should  be  read  to  get  the  play  on  quasi  ego  and 
quasi  In. 

"Contrast  with  this  verse  a  later  reference  in  the  same  play: 

nam  olim  quom  abiit,  argento  haec  dies 
praestitutast,  quoad  referrel   nobis,  neque  dum  rettulit.     (Ps.  623) 

Most,  cis  should   be  included,  if   Leo's  supplementary   readings  are 

correct. 


254  University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 

nmlier  profecto  natast  ex  ipsa  Mora; 

nam  quaevis  alia  quae  morast  aeque,  mora 

minor  ea  videtur  quam  quae  propter  mulieremst.      (M.  G.  1292) 

pro  di   immortales,  similiorem  mulierem 

magisque  eandem,  ut  pote  quae  non  sit  eadem,   (M.  G.  528) 

In  none  of  these  is  the  separation  violent;  effective  antithesis, 
long  words  grouped  in  one  verse,  alliteration,  the  combination 
of  associated  ideas — ea  .  .  .  quae  propter  mulieremst,101  eandem 
.  .  .  eadem — are  compensating  features,  all  of  which  testify  to 
the  individuality  of  the  verse. 

The  freedom  with  which  the  relative  is  separated  from  its 
noun  in  Oscan  and  Umbrian  (Norden,  Kunstprosa  I  181  n. ; 
Altenburg,  De  sermone  pedestri  Italorum  vetustissimo  530) 
suggests  that  the  relative  adjective  has  an  inherent  separability ; 
and  in  several  of  the  cases  there  is  some  evidence  of  unity  de- 
spite the  separation : 

nimis  paene  manest. — mane  quod  tu  occeperis 
negotium  age  re,  id  totum  proeedit  diem.      (Pers.  114) 

ut  in  tabellis  quos  consignavi  hie  heri 

latrones,  ibus  denumerem  stipendium.     (M.  G.  73) 

cui  servitutem  di  danunt  lenoniam 

puero,  atque  eidem  si  addunt  turpitudinem,   (Ps.  767) 

ita  ut  occepi  dicere,  ilium  quern  dudum  (e  fano  foras) 

lenonem  extrusisti,  hie  eius  vidulum  eccillum  (tenet).     (Rud.  1065) 

di  ilium  infelicent  omnes,  qui  post  hunc  diem 

leno  ullam  Veneri  unquam  immolarit  hostiam,   (Poen.  449) 

qui  hie  litem  apisci  postulant  peiurio 

mali,  res  falsas  qui  impetrant  apud  iudicem,   (Rud.  17) 

quin  tu  tuam  rem  cura  potius  quam  Seleuci,  quae  tibi 

condicio  nova  et  luculenta  fertur  per  me  interpretem.     (M.  G.  951) 

ni  hercle  diffregeritis  talos  posthac  quemque  in  tegulis 
videritis  alienum,102  (M.  G.  156) 

qui  omnes  se  amare  credit,  quaeque  aspexerit 

mulier:103  eum  oderunt  qua  viri  qua  mulieres.     (M.  G.  1391) 


01  This  does  not  exhaust  the  effects:   note  mora  at  the  ends  of  succes- 
sive verses;   and  mora  at  the  end  of  the  second  verse  may  be  in  close  re- 
lation with  quaevis  alia  of  its  own  verse  as  well  as  with  the  next  verse. 
302  Similarly,  but  without  separation  by  the  verse  in 

quemque  a  milite  hoc  videritis  hominem  in  nostris  tegulis,   (M.  G.  160) 

Uultrnnt    H,  mulieres  cum  CD. 


Vol.  l]       Prcscott. — Thought   and   Verst    in   Plautus.  255 

The  uniformity  with  which  the  separated  substantive  stands  at 
the  beginning  of  the  second  verse  is  rather  striking :  the  mystery 
suggested  by  the  anticipatory  relatives  makes  its  solution  worth} 
of  a  prominent  position ;  the  resumptive  pronoun  in  many  cases 
makes  the  noun  at  home  in  its  verse  in  spite  of  separation — 
negotium  .  .  .  id,latrones  .  .  .  ibus,  puero  .  .  .  eidem,  lenonem 
.  .  .  eius;  other  evidence  of  unity  is  visible  in  the  fact  that  mali 
(Rud.  18)  belongs  as  much  with  the  qui  of  its  own  verse  as 
with  the  qui  of  the  preceding  verse,104  and  in  the  echo  mirfier 
.  .  .  mulieres  (M.  G.  1392). 105 

Occasionally  the  interrogative  adjective  is  similarly  separated: 

quem  amplexa  sum 
hominem?     (M.  G.  1345) 

cuia  ad  aures 
vox  mi  advolavit?     (Kud.  332  )106 

The  indefinite  adjectives,  too,  now  and  then  appear  in  verses 
by  themselves;  such  a  separation  of  nescio  quis  from  its  noun 
hardly  impairs  verse-unity;107  and  cases  of  aliquis  and  quis- 
quam,108  by  the  very  nature  of  the  words,  are  inoffensive : 

nam  sibi  laudavisse  hasce  ait  architectonem 

nescio  quem  exaedificatas  insanum  bene.      (Most.  760) 

atque  ego  illi  aspicio  osculantem  Philocomasium  cum  altero 
nescio  quo  adulescente.      (M.   G.  288) 

si  censes,  coquom 
aliquem  arripiamus,  prandium  qui  percoquat    (Merc.   579) 

ego  si  allegavissem  aliquem  ad  hoc  negotium 

minus  hominem  doctum  minusque  ad  hanc  rem  callidum,  (Ep.  427) 


104  Cf.  Leo,  Analecta  Plautina:  de  figuris  sermonis  I  20.  The  position  of 
malt  (18)  and  bonos  (21),  each  at  the  beginning  of  its  verse,  brings  out 
the  contrast. 

105  For  the  repetition  of  mulier  cf. 

ecce  ad  me  advenit 

mulier,    qua    mulier   alia    nullast    pulchrior:     (Merc.    100) 

108  Cui   MSS.      But   the   same   or   similar   phrases   usually    occur   without 
separation:   Trin.  45,  Cure.  229,  Merc.  864. 
307  Cf.  Ter.  Ad.  657-658. 
508  Cf.  Ter.  Ad.  716-717. 


256  University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 

peiorem  ego  hominem  magisque  vorsute  malum 

numquam  edepol  quemquam  vidi  quam  hie  est  Simla;    (Ps.  1017) 

aeque  ego  taetriorem  beluam 
vidisse  me  umquain  quemquam  quam  te  censeo.     (Most.  607) 

There  are  some  noteworthy  features:  the  balanced  alliteration 
in  Merc.  579-580;  in  Ep.  427  aliqucm  is  really  substantival, 
"somebody  else,"  and  the  next  verse  a  separable  element;  in 
the  two  cases  of  quisquam,  the  regular  juxtaposition  of  words 
ending  in  -quam  is  illustrated.109 

Alter,110  when  separated,  is  in  effect  an  added  idea  : 

at  ego  nunc,  Amphitruo,  dieo:  Sosiam  servom  tuom 

praeter  me  alterum,  inquam,  adveniens  faciam  ut  offendas  domi.      (Amph, 
612) 

eho  tu,  quam  vos  igitur  filiam 
nunc  quaeritatis  alteram?     (Cist.  602) 

The  separation  of  alterum  from  tantum  in  the  following  couplet 
(omitted  in  A)  is  more  violent;  cf.  the  same  phrase  wuthin  the 
verse  in  Bacch.  1184.  an  anapestic  passage,  and  in  frag.  4  of 
the  Caecus: 

immo  etiam  si  alterum 
tantum    perdundumst,   perdam   potius   quam   sinam    (Ep.   518) 

So  in  this  case  of  tantulwm: 

immo,  Chrysale,  ''in  non  tantulum 
unquam  intermittit  tempus  quin  eum  nominet.      (Bacch.  209) 

It  would  be  difficult  to  prove  that  any  emphasis  is  attained  by 
the  position  of  these  cretic  words  at  the  end  of  the  verse  and 
by  their  separation  from  the  substantives,  but  the  context  in 
each  case  suggests  considerable  emphasis  upon  the  adjectives.111 


00  This  hardly  needs  further  evidence,  but  to  quote  only  one  play,  cf. 
Men.  192,  400,  447,  518,  613,  780,  959. 

110  Cf.  the  separation  of  alius  in  St.  449-450;  Ter.  And.  778-779  (alia 
<il in m),  Hec.  365-366,  Ad.  52-53,  in  the  last  two  cases  preceding  the  noun. 

1,1  The  inherent  separability  of  these  pronominal  adjectives  is  confirmed 
by  the  same  phenomena  in  (ireek :  cf.  above,  p.  215,  and  for  the  demonstratives 
Menander  567;  Philemon  7;  58;  Diphilus  30;  3;  for  avTog  Menander  117- 
118;  580;  748;  for  nc  .Menander  325,  8;  for  Sort; Menander  393;  for  nxmvra 
Menander  140;  for  h'f'/<,r  Menander  535,  3. 


Vol.  i]       Prescott. — Thought   and   Versi    in   Plautus.  257 


VI. 

The  numerals,  also,  have  an  independent  existence  which  may 
account  for  the  cases  of  separation  hy  the  verse-end : 

scelestiorem  ego  annum  argento  faenori     , 

numquam  ullum  vidi  quam  hie  mihi  annus  optigit.      (Most.  5.32) 

verbuni 
nullum11-  fecit.     (Bacch.  982) 

ferat  epistulas 
duas,  eas  nos  consignemus,  quasi  sint  a  patre:    (Trin.  774) 

ei  filiae 
duae  erant,  quasi  nunc  meae  sunt ;  eae  erant  duobus  nuptae  f  ratribus, 
quasi  nunc  meae  sunt  vobis.     (St.  539) 

Alexandrian  magnum  atque  Agathoclem  aiunt  maxumas 

duo   res  gessisse:    quid   mihi  fiet  tertio, 

qui  solus  facio  facinora  inmortalia.     (Most.  775) 

hie  dico,  in  fanum  Veneris  qui  mulierculas 
duas  secum  adduxit,   (Rud.  128) 

occepere  aliae  mulieres 
duae  post  me  sic  fabulari  inter  sese  (Ep.  236) 

mulieres 
duae  innocentes  intus  hie  sunt,  tui  indigentes  auxili,   (Eud.  641) 

quia  vos  in  patriam  domum 
rediisse  video  bene  gesta  re  ambos,  te  et  fratrem  tuom.     (St.  506) 

turn  captivorum  quid   ducunt  secum!    pueros,  virgines, 
binos,  ternos,  alius  quinque;    (Ep.  210) 

ul>i  .saepe  causam  dixeris  pendens  advorsus  octo 
artutos,  audacis  viros,  valentis  virgatores.      (As.  564) 

ubi  saepe  ad  languorem  tua  duritia  dederis  octo 

va lidos  lictores,  ulmeis  adfeetos  lentis  virgis.      (As.  574) 

(atque)   auditavi   saepe  hoc  volgo  dicier, 
solere  elephantuni  gravidam  perpetuus  decern 
esse  annos;    (St.  167) 

noil  quinquaginta  modo, 
(jiunlringentos  filios  hain't    atque  equidem   lectos  sine   probro:    (Bacch.  973) 


112  Verbum  nullum  without  separation  by  the  verse  in  Bacch.  785  (by 
emendation),  Ter.  Eun.  88.  I'llns,  with  neque  preceding,  is  separated  in 
Ter.  .M.  85. 


258  University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 

The  last  passage  is  from  a  canticum,  and  is  ascribed  by  Leo  to 

an  ampliticator.     In  the  other  examples  some  attendant  features 

are  worth  noting.     Respect  for  unity  is  shown  in  duae — duobus 

(St.  539),  duo—tertio    (Most.  775), 113  and  in  the  isolation  of 

adjectives  and  nouns  in  the  second  verse  in  the  two  examples 

from  the  Asinaria.     In  most  of  the  cases  the  numeral  follows 

the  noun,  or  if  it  precedes  the  separation  brings  into  prominence 

important  elements    (As.   564,  574,  St.   168).     A  few  cases  of 

omnes  are  in  place  here:114 

hariolos,  haruspices 
mitte  omnes;    (Amph.  1132) 

quin  edepol  servos,  ancillas  domo 
certum  est  omnia  mittere  ad  te.      (^as.  521) 

deartuasti  dilaceravisti  atque  opes 

confecisti  omnes,  res  ac  rationes  meas:    (Capt.  672  ap.  Nonium) 

ita  res  divina  mini  fuit:   res  serias 

omnis  extollo  ex  hoc  die  in  alium  diem.     (Poen.  499) 

Ebodum  venimus,  ubi  quas  merces  vexeram 
omnis  ut  volui  vendidi  ex  sententia:    (Merc.  93) 

servos  pollicitust  dare 
suos  mihi  omnis  quaestioni.      (Most.  10S7) 

ubi  ego  omnibus 
parvis  maguisque  miseriis  praefulcior :    (Ps.  771) 

atque  me  minoris  facio  prae  illo,  qui  omnium 

legum  atque  iurum  fictor,  conditor  cluet;    (Ep.  522) 

fateor  me  omnium 
hominum  esse  Athenis  Atticis  minimi  preti.     (Ep.  501) 

The  first  six  examples,  in  which  the  adjective  follows  in  the 
second  verse,  involve  no  violation  of  verse-unity ;  the  last  three, 
however,  are  certainly,  from  an  English  standpoint,  more  de- 
structive of  unity.  (Cf.  also  the  separation  of  tot  in  Poen. 
582.)  It  is  likely  that  the  adjective  is  more  separable  than 
the  corresponding  word  in  English :  the  evidence  for  this  is 
found  in  the  apparent  separability  of  numerals  in  general,  and 


113  Cf.  Poen.  898. 

114  For  omnes  in  Ter.  cf.  And.  77,  667,  Eun.  1032.  Similarly  complures, 
Ter.  Ad.  229  (cf.  plurumi  in  Plautus,  above,  p.  237);  pauci,  Ter.  Hec.  58; 
aliquod,  Ter.  Phor.  312.     Cf.  Norden,  Aeneis  Buch  VI,  390. 


Vol.  l]       Prescott— Thought   and   Verse   in   Plautus.  259 

in  the  usage  of  the  corresponding  words  in  Greek  verse.115  Cer- 
tainly the  explanation  of  the  separation  of  numerals  is  more 
likely  to  be  found  in  inherent  qualities  of  the  numerals  as 
such  than  in  such  attendant  features  as  the  metrical  convenience 
of  the  cretic  omnium  at  the  end  of  a  verse. 


VII. 

Proper  and  improper  numerals,  pronominal  adjectives,  and 
in  particular  possessive  adjectives  were  separated  without  essen- 
tial disturbance  of  verse-unity.  This  inherent  separability 
seems  to  be  proved  not  only  by  the  treatment  of  these  words  in 
Plautus,  but  by  the  evidence  furnished  by  early  Latin  prose, 
and  by  Greek  prose  and  verse:  the  nature  of  the  evidence  sug- 
gests that  this  separability  was  an  inherited  trait.  The  opera- 
tion of  Wackernagel's  law  and  of  the  law  of  pronominal  attrac- 
tion is  a  further  manifestation  of  the  looseness  of  the  bond  that 
binds  pronominal  adjectives  to  their  nouns.  The  separation  of 
possessive  adjectives  was  probably  promoted  by  the  unemphatic 
nature  of  the  words,  which  suffered  a  loss  of  their  individuality. 
These  conclusions  do  not  differ  essentially  from  those  of  Appuhn. 

In  the  treatment  of  attributive  adjectives,  however,  I  hope 
that  something  has  been  gained  by  an  atteiript  to  interpret, 
within  the  limits  set  by  the  paper,  the  passages  illustrating  sep- 
aration. We  found  that  attributives  following  the  noun  and 
separated  were  regularly  expressions  of  ideas  ranging  from  pre- 
dicative to  amplifying,  and  the  separation  was  usually  attended 
by  features  that  reinforced  the  unity  of  the  verse.  We  found, 
too,  that  when  the  separated  attributives  preceded  their  nouns, 
although  from  an  English  standpoint  the  unity  of  the  verse  was 


115  For  the  ordinary  numerals  in  Ter.  cf.  Eun.  332,  Phor.  638,  Ad.  46. 
For  Greek  examples  cf .  elg,  ovdeig,  fiqdeig,  Menander  535,  3 ;  282 ;  382 ;  397 ; 
128,  3;  Philemon  4,  13;  28,  9;  other  numerals,  Menander  7,  1;  357;  547- 
548;  Philemon  12;  89,  7;  nag,  Menander  13,  2;  173;  b/ioc,  Menander  67,  2; 
KdvTeg,  arravTcg, Diphilus  17,  2;  Philemon  91,  7;  Menander  292,  4;  363,  7; 
404,  7;  532,  1;  tto'aM,  Menander  593.  And  for  numerals  in  early  Latin 
prose,  cf.  Altenburg,  1.  c.  524  ff. 


260  University  of  California  Publications.    [Class  Phil. 

impaired,  there  were  almost  always  associations  of  sound  or 
sense  that  reasserted  the  unity  of  the  verse ;  more  often  the  unity 
was  apparent  in  the  organization  of  the  thought  than  in  the 
superficial  colligation  resulting-  from  sound-effects. 

We  may  not  always  he  confident  that  the  resultant  effects  rep- 
resent  efficient  causes:  in  the  matter  of  alliteration  this  is  espe- 
cially true.  The  confinement,  in  most  cases,  of  alliterative, 
groups  to  a  single  verse  attests  the  entity  of  the  verse,  but  allit- 
eration is  seldom  more  than  an  incidental  factor  in  separation : 
usually  other  and  stronger  factors  appear  along  with  alliteration. 

Metrical  convenience  is  evident  in  the  position  of  some  words, 
especially  those  of  considerable  length,  cretic  words,  and  the 
possessive  adjectives  of  pyrrhic  and  iambic  measurement :  the 
position  convenient  for  such  words  may  have  conduced  to  sepa- 
ration.    Again,  however,  other  factors  are  usually  discernible. 

Indeed,  the  total  effect  of  a  verse  or  couplet  is  a  product  of 
many  factors:  it  is  not  easy  to  say  that  one  is  more  important 
than  another.  But  it  seems  to  me  noteworthy  that  in  so  large 
a  number  of  separated  attributives,  the  unity  of  the  verse,  if 
my  interpretation  is  correct,  is  effected  by  internal  organization 
rather  than  by  superficial  colligation.  So  much  so  that  in  cases 
like  maxumo  |  me  opsecravisti  opere,  optuma  |  vos  video  oppor- 
tunilate,  tesseram  |  conferre  si  vis  hospitalem  I  prefer  to  recog- 
nize the  beginnings  of  a  freer  technique  rather  than  admit 
metrical  convenience  and  alliteration  as  really  dominant  factors 
in  the  separation. 

Such  cases  are  rare;  nor  may  anybody  deny  the  essential  unity 
of  verse,  the  practical  identity  of  verse  and  thought,  in  the  ex- 
amples under  discussion.  The  effect  is  often  crudely  simple, 
but  in  many  cases  the  poet  is  far  from  being  a  clumsy  crafts- 
man; he  shows  no  little  competency  in  making  verse-unity  a 
means  of  bringing  into  effective  relief  associated  thoughts  and 
sounds;  and  occasionally  he  uses  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the 
same  verse,  the  beginnings  of  successive  verses,  in  ways  that  indi- 
cate a  consciousness  of  the  opportunities,  not  merely  of  the  limi- 
tations, presented  by  verse-unity. 

It  is  also  significant  that  we  can  find  so  little  positive  proof  of 


Vol.  l]       Prescott— Thought  and   Verse   in   Plautus.  261 

the  influence  of  his  Greek  sources:116  he  seems  rather  to  be  work- 
ing out  his  own  problems  in  the  spirit  of  his  own  language,  fash- 
ioning his  verse  with  nice  adjustment  of  sound-effects  peculiar 
to  Latin,  often  producing  a  neat  balance  or  antithesis  which  has 
yet  to  be  proved  to  result  from  a  study  of  Greek  rhetoric,  and 
happily  conserving,  even  within  the  limits  set  by  verse-unity, 
the  simpler  forms  of  interlocked  word-groups,  which  are  as 
characteristic  of  the  organizing  power  of  the  Roman  mind  as 
any  phase  of  their  political  administration.  These  same  word- 
groups,  however,  must  sometimes  break  down  the  barriers,  and 
maxumo  |  vie  opsecravisti  opere,  optuma  \  vos  video  opportuni- 
tate,  Usseram  \  conferre  si  vis  hospitalem  perhaps  point  the  way 
which  leads  to  greater  freedom. 

Only  after  further  investigation  is  it  safe  to  take  the  historical 
point  of  view  and  ask  ourselves  what  is  Plautus 's  precise  posi- 
tion in  the  development  of  verse-technique.  In  the  answer  to 
that  question  we  must  not  be  too  hasty  in  placing  him  near  the 
beginning  of  art-poetry  in  Latin :  the  comic  verse  under  discus- 
sion is  the  most  capacious  of  the  commoner  forms  of  metre ;  and 
this  verse  conveyed  the  conversational  Latin  of  the  day  to  an 
audience  that  must  catch  at  once  the  effects  of  sound  and 
thought.  Epic  verse  and  tragedy  were  created  under  different 
conditions.  Some  of  the  simple  directness  of  Plautus 's  verse  is 
perhaps  to  be  attributed  to  these  conditions  rather  than  to  the 
chronological  proximity  of  the  Saturnian  verse.  But  in  the 
present  paper  we  have  been  interested  only  in  suggesting  some 

16  Without  further  investigation  of  Greek  technique  the  statement  must 
remain  in  this  vague  form.  It  would  be  easy  to  find  parallels  from  Eurip- 
ides, and  some  cases  from  the  New  Comedy,  of  Plautus 's  postponement 
of  adjectives  and  nouns  to  the  beginning  of  the  second  verse,  and  of  post- 
ponement for  antithetical  effects,  but  the  running  over  of  the  thought  to  the 
caesura  of  the  second  verse,  familiar  to  readers  of  Greek  tragic  poetry,  is 
the  exception  rather  than  the  rule  in  Plautus;  nor  are  the  features  common 
to  Greek  and  Plautine  verse  too  hastily  to  be  regarded  as  merely  imitative 
in  Latin  verse,  especially  in  the  case  of  antithetical  effects.  Investigation, 
particularly  of  the  technique  of  Aristophanes,  Euripides,  and  the  New 
Comedy,  based  upon  sympathetic  interpretation,  must  precede  any  more 
precise  statement  of  Plautus  's  relation  to  his  models  in  these  respects. 


262  University  of  California  Publications.   [Class  Phil. 

ways  of  interpreting  a  small  part  of  the  evidence  that  bears  upon 
the  question  which  Leo  has  answered,  forestalling  the  investiga- 
tion of  the  subject  in  his  admirable  statement  of  the  historical 
position  of  Plantns  in  this  phase  of  verse-technique. 


°°0  015  3, 


UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA    PU  BLICATION  S-  CONTI  N  u  EDi 

ANTHROPOLOGICAL  MEMOIRS.     (Quarto). 

Vol.  I.     Explorations  in  Peru,  by  Max  Uhle  (in  preparation). 
No.  1.    The  Ruins  of  Moche. 
No.  2.    Huamachuco,  Chincha,  lea. 
No.  3.    The  Inca  Buildings  of  the  Valley  of  Pisco. 

ASTRONOMY.-W.  W.  Campbell,  Editor.     (Lick  Observatory,  Mt.  Hamilton,  Cal.) 
Publications  of  the  Lick  Observatory.— Volumes  I-V  completed.    Volume 

VI  (in  progress). 
No.  1.    A  Short  Method  of  Determining  Orbits  from  Three  Observations, 

by  A.  O.  Leuschner. 
No.  2.     Elements  of  Asteroid  1900  GA,  by  A.  O.  Leuschner  and  Adelaide 

M.  Hobe. 
No.  3.     Preliminary  Elements  of  Comet   1900  III,  by  R.  H.  Curtiss  and 

C.  G.  Dall. 
Contributions  from  the  Lick  Observatory.— Nos.  I-V. 
Lick  Observatory  Bulletins.— Volumes  I— II I  completed.     Volume  IV  (in 

progress). 

BOTANY.— W.  A.  Setchell,  Editor.     Price  per  volume  $3.50.    Volume  I  (pp.  418) 

completed.    Volume  II  (in  progress). 
No.    8.    The  Resistance  of  Certain  Marine  Algae  to  Changes  in  Osmotic 

Pressure  and  Temperature,  by  W.  J.  V.  Osterhout. 
No.    9.    The  Role  of  Osmotic  Pressure  in  Marine  Plants,  by  W.  J.  V. 

Osterhout. 

No.  10.    On   the   Importance   of   Physiologically  Balanced    Solutions   for 

Plants,  by  W.  J.  V.  Osterhout. 
No.  11.    The  Antitoxic  Action  of  Potassium  on  Magnesium,  by  W.  J.  V. 

Osterhout. 
No.  12.    Cytological  Studies  in  Cyanophyceae,  by  Nathaniel  Lyon  Gardner. 
...        .  ...        .        .        .      Price, 

No.  13.    On  a  small  Collection  of  Mosses  from  Alaska,  by  J.  Cardot  and 

T.  Theriot Price, 

EDUCATION.— Edited  by  the  Department  of  Education.     Price  per  volume  $2.50 
Volume  I  (pp.  424).     Notes  on  the  Development  of  a  Child,  by  Milicent  W. 

Shinn Price, 

Vol.  II  (in  progress). — No.  1.     Notes  on  Children's  Drawings,  by  Elmer  E. 

Brown  .        .        . '       Price, 

Vol.  Ill  (in progress). —No.   1.    Origin  of  American  State  Universities,  by 

Elmer  E.  Brown Price, 

No.  2.     State  Aid  to  Secondary  Schools,  by  David 
Rhys  Jones Price, 

ENGINEERING. — Edited  under  the  direction  of  the  Engineering  Departments. 
This  series  will  contain  contributions  from  the  Colleges  of 
Mechanics,  Mining,  and  Civil  Engineering.  Volume  I  in  progress. 
No.  1.  Bulletin  of  the  Department  of  Civil  Engineering.  I.— Moment 
Diagrams  and  Typical  Live  Loads,  by  Charles  Derleth,  Jr., 
Pages  1-9,  Plate  1.    January,  1907.     .  Price, 

GEOLOGY. — Bulletin  of  the  Department  of  Geology.  Andrew  C.  Lawson,  Editor. 
Price  per  volume  $3.50.  Volumes  I  (pp.  428),  II  (pp.  450), 
III  (475)  and  IV  (462),  completed.    Volume  V  (in  progress). 

4.  New  Cestraciont  Teeth  from  the  West  American  Triassic,  by  Edna  M. 

Wemple.  Price,        .10 

5.  Preliminary  Note  on  a  New  Marine  Reptile  from  the  Middle  Triassic 

of  Nevada,  by  John  C.  Merriam Price,        .10 

6.  Lawsonite,  Columbite,  Beryl,  Barite,  and  Calcite,  by  Arthur  S.  Eakle. 

Pp.  81-94,  pi.  10.    January,  1907.  .  Price,        .10 

7.  The  Fossil  Fishes  of  California,  with  Supplementary  Notes  on  other 

Species  of  Extinct  Fishes,  by  David  Starr  Jordan.     Pp.  95-144, 

pis.  11-12.     April,  1907 Price,        .50 

8.  Fish  Remains  from  the  Marine  Lower  Triassic  of  Aspen  Ridge,  Idaho, 

by  Malcolm  Goddard.     Pp.  145-148,  June,  1907.  Price,        .05 


2.25 
.50 

.50 
.75 


10 


UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA   PUBUCATIONS-(CONTINUED) 

PATHOLOGY.— Alonzo  Englebert  Taylor,    Editor.      Price   per  volume,   $2.50. 
Volume  I  (pp.  347)  completed. 

No.  5.     On  the  Autolysis  of  Protein,  by  Alonzo  Englebert  Taylor.  I    one 

No.  6.    On  the  Reversion  of  Tryptic  Digestion,  by  Alonzo  Englebert  Taylor,  f  cover 

No.  7.     Studies  on  an  Ash-Free  Diet,  by  Alonzo  Englebert  Taylor.     Price,  .20 

No.  8.     On  Fermentation,  by  Alonzo  Englebert  Taylor.        .        .       Price,  2.00 
No.  9.     On  the   Synthesis   of  Protein   through   the   Action  of  Trypsin,  by 

Alonzo  Englebert  Taylor.             Price,  .05 

PHILOSOPHY.— Volume  I,  completed.     Price,  $2.00. 

PHYSIOLOGY.— Jacques   Loeb,  Editor.     Price  per  volume  $2.00.      Volume  I 
(pp.  217)   completed.      Volume    II    (pp.   215)   completed. 
Volume  III  (in  progress). 
No.     7.    On  the  Counteraction  of  the  Toxic  Effect  of  Hypertonic  Solutions 
upon  the  Fertilized  and  Unfertilized  Egg  of  the  Sea-Urchin  by 
Lack  of  Oxygen,  by  Jacques  Loeb. 
No.    8.    On  the  Production  of  a  Fertilization  Membrane  in  the  Egg  of  the 
Sea-Urchin  with  the  Blood  of   Certain  Gephyrean   worms   (a 
preliminary  note),  by  Jacques  Loeb. 
No.     9.     Note  on  the  Synthesis  of  Protein  through  the  Action  of  Pepsin,  by 

T.  Brailsford  Robertson. 
John  Bruce  MacCallum :  On  the  Mechanism  of  the  Physiological  Action  of 

the  Cathartics.  .......  Price,  75c. 

ZOOLOGY.— W.  E.  Ritter,  Editor.     Price  per  volume  $3.50.    Volumes  I  (pp. 

317)  and  II  (pp.  382)  completed.     Volume  III  (in  progress). 

Commencing  with  Volume  II,  this  series  contains  Contributions 

from  the   Laboratory  of  the  Marine  Biological  Association   of 

San  Diego. 
No.     6.     Dinoflagellata  of  the  San  Diego  Region,   II.     On  Triposolenia,] 

a  New  Genus  of  the  Dinophysidae,  by  Charles  Atwood  Kofoid. 

Pages  24,  Plates  3. 
No.     7.    A    Discussion   of    the   Species    Characters   in   Triposolenia, 

Charles  Atwood  Kofoid.     Pages  10. 
No.     8.     On    the    Significance    of    the    Asymmetry    in    Triposolenia, 

Charles  Atwood  Kofoid;     Pages  7. 
No.    9.    Ostracoda  of  the  San   Diego   Region.     II.— Littoral  Forms,  by]      *n 

Chancey  Juday.     Pages  22,  Pis.  3.  '   '     one 

No.  10.    Cladocera  of  the  San  Diego  Region,  by  Chancey  Juday.     Pages  |  Price 
2,  text-figure  1.  *-  J        .25 

No.  11.     The  Marine  Fishes  of  Southern  California,  by  Edwin  Chapin  Starks 

and  Earl  Leonard  Morris.     Pages  93,  Plate  1.    .  Price,       .75 

No.  12.  Biological  Studies  on  Corymorpha.  II. — The  Development  of 
C.  palma  from  the  Egg,  by  Harry  Beal  Torrey.  Pages  46, 
33  text  figures.      .  Price,       .50 

No.  13.     Dinoflagellata  of  the  San  Diego  Region,  III.     Description  of  New 

Species,  by  Charles  Atwood  Kofoid.  Pages  42,  Plates  12.    Price,       .50 

UNIVERSITY  CHRONICLE.— An  official  record  of  University  life,  issued  quarterly, 
edited  by  a  committee  of  the  faculty.  Price,  $1.00  per  year.  Current 
volume  No.  IX. 


Address  all  orders,  or  requests  for  information  concerning  the  above  publications 
to  The  University  Press,  Berkeley,  California. 

European  agent  for  the  series  in  American  Archaeology  and  Ethnology,  Classical 
Philology,  Education,  Philosophy,  and  Semitic  Philology,  Otto  Harrassowitz,  Leipzig. 
For  the  series  in  Botany,  Geology,  Pathology,  Physiology,  and  also  American  Archae- 
ology and  Ethnology,  R.  Friedlaender  &  Sobn,  Berlin. 


